Magellan Rx

Transcription

Magellan Rx

MEDICAL Pharmacy & ONCOLOGY
TREND REPORT™
2011 Second edition
ICORE HEALTHCARE
www.ICOREHealthcare.com/Trends.aspx
A Benchmark for Medical Pharmacy
2letter to our readers
Medical Pharmacy –
The Future of Specialty Drugs and
Overall Pharmacy Benefit Management
It is our pleasure to present you with ICORE Healthcare’s 2011 Medical Pharmacy & Oncology
Trend ReportTM. This is the second edition of this report, and it has been enhanced this
year by showing year-over-year changes in costs, trends, and payor management tools for
provider-administered specialty products, which are paid under the medical benefit. As in
the past, various reports exist to describe specialty and oral chemotherapy products paid
under the pharmacy benefit; however, no other source exists for injectables paid under a
payor’s medical benefit, where top drugs such as Neulasta, Remicade, Avastin, Rituxan,
Procrit, and Aranesp are almost entirely paid. We are excited to continue to be your sole
source for these important benchmarking and trending statistics.
In recent years, we’ve seen traditional oral pharmacy products associated with few U.S. Food
and Drug Administration approvals when compared with specialty products. This finding will
continue to prevail, in part due to the oncology pipeline, which is even more robust than it
was in 2010 – specifically, there is a 16 percent increase in the number of phase 2 oncology
agents, as well as a 10 percent increase in the number of phase 3 oncology agents year over
year. With this continued growth, specialty drugs, and in particular those that are provider
administered, will come to dominate the pharmacy market, so knowing the extent and
impact of medical injectable costs and trends is more critical now than ever.
To understand these costs and trends, as well as the payor initiatives used this year
compared with 2010, we surveyed 60 medical, pharmacy, and clinical directors, representing
health plans that provide medical and pharmacy benefits to 153 million commercial
members. We then evaluated the paid claim files of health plans’ medical benefit injectables
such that benchmarks and trends could be determined.
We want to offer special thanks to the payor executives who served on this year’s ICORE
Healthcare Medical Pharmacy & Oncology Trend ReportTM advisory board. It was their input
into the overall objective, content, and design that allowed us to offer this comprehensive
report.
Sincerely,
Kjel A. Johnson, Pharm.D.
Senior Vice President, Strategy & Business Development
Magellan Pharmacy Solutions
CONTENTS
Published by:
ICORE Healthcare
5850 T.G. Lee Blvd., Suite 510
Orlando, FL 32822
Tel: 866-66i-core
Fax: 866-99i-core
info@icorehealthcare.com
www.icorehealthcare.com
Publishing Staff
Publisher
Kjel A. Johnson, Pharm.D.
Media Manager
Erika Ruiz-Colon
©2011 ICORE Healthcare, a Magellan Health Company.
ICORE Healthcare's 2011 Medical Pharmacy & Oncology
Trend ReportTM is published in conjunction with Krames
StayWell. All rights reserved. All trademarks are the
property of their respective owners. Printed in the U.S.A.
The content – including text, graphics, images, and
information obtained from third parties, licensors, and
other material (“content”) – is for informational purposes
only. The content is not intended to be a substitute for
professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment.
4 Introduction
5 2011 Survey Methodology
and Demographics
ICORE Healthcare's Medical Pharmacy & Oncology
Trend Report™ combines primary survey research data
collection with secondary data analysis of medical
injectable and oncology claims.
8 Report Summary and Conclusions
9 Payor Survey Data
A survey conducted among health plan executives
provides a real-world view of current payor coverage
strategies and tactics.
Medical Benefit Drug Formulary
Provider Reimbursement
Benefit Design
Contributors
Distribution Channel Management
Michael H. Waterbury
Utilization Management
President, Icore Healthcare
Janet T. Serluco, M.S.
Director, Specialty Injectables Market Research
Lindsay A. Laskowski, M.B.A.
Senior Analyst
Erika I. Ruiz-Colon
Creative Director
Rob Louie, R.Ph.
Vice President, Clinical Medical Pharmacy
Jeanine Boyle, J.D., M.P.H.
Vice President, Health care Reform Strategy
Michele Marsico
Director, Analytics
Mary Talberg
Senior Manager, Data and Analytics
Operational Improvements
35 Health Plan Claims Data
ICORE Healthcare analysis of medical injectable
and oncology claims allows for a practical
interpretation of the drivers related to trend
and spend for these products.
Trend Drivers
Melina Denno
Management of spend Drivers
Abiah Loethen, M.P.H.
National Provider Trends
Medical Pharmacy Analyst
Statistics/Data Mining Analyst – Health care Informatics
Payor Advisory Board
Roger Muller, M.D., FACEP
Market Medical Director – United Healthcare
Mona Chitre, Pharm.D. Director of Clinical Services – Excellus BlueCross BlueShield
Chris Ciano, R.Ph.
Director of Clinical Programs – MedMetrics Health Partners
Samir Mistry, Pharm.D.
Clinical Consultant – formerly with BCBS Kansas City
Steve Marciniak, R.Ph.
Director, Pharmacy Programs – Priority Health
Kristy Pezzino, Pharm.D.
New Analyses for 2011
45 Product Pipeline and
Legislative Trends
This section discusses biosimilar and phase 2/3 clinical
trial agents by key tumor type, along with a
summary of 2011 key legislative outcomes.
Product Pipeline
Key Legislative Outcomes – 2011
Clinical Pharmacist – Health Alliance Medical Plan
Gary Tereso, Pharm.D., BCPS
Director of Pharmacy – Health New England
58 Glossary
Figures may be reprinted with the following citation:
ICORE Healthcare's Medical Pharmacy & Oncology Trend Report™, ©2011.
Used with permission.
ICORE Healthcare, Medical Pharmacy & Oncology Trend Report™
3
Trend Report 2011
4
INTRODUCTION
A Benchmark for
Medical Injectables
In 2011, nearly all payor executives identified provideradministered injectable drugs as a cost driver and concern, and the majority of these industry experts reported
specific concerns related to the overall cost of medical
benefit drugs, which is a threat to cost of care. As a result,
and documented within this report, payors have implemented internal and external partnership cost management
strategies to mitigate this threat.
payors from whom the data were extracted. We expect to
see modest trend increases this year, partly due to several
new high-cost therapies entering the market. As a result,
payors will have to continue to focus on cost and utilization management strategies to effectively manage this
trend.
Our second issue of this Medical Pharmacy & Oncology
Trend ReportTM features two key sections. The first outThis year, a key cost driver includes the transition from
lines our findings from the study of medical, pharmacy,
office-based to facility-based administration; in fact, during
and clinical directors at 60 payors across the United States
the past few years, consolidation and acquisition activities
ranging in size from 30,000 lives to more than 20 milhave had a tremendous impact on office-based providers,
lion lives. This section contemplates current and future
which serve as the largest site of service
cost-management techniques across six key
Many of the benchmarks and
for provider-administered injectables. In
medical injectable drug management drivstatistics found in this report are
addition, significant utilization increases
ers, as shown in the table. Note that our findnot available elsewhere. Because
were found in niche therapies such as
ings for this section are generally reported
of this, coupled with frequent
Lucentis, Xolair, and Tysabri.
as percent of covered lives rather than
requests from our customers
percent of payors, since nearly two-thirds of
and partners, you may access
Offsetting these increases were lower uticovered lives are enrolled in the 10 largest
the report at www.icorehealth
lization of Avastin for breast cancer and
payors, and a bias may thus be introduced.
care.com/trends.aspx
the introduction and expansion of generic
Taxotere and Eloxatin. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents
The second section of this report uses paid medical ben(ESAs), such as Procrit and Aranesp, continued their downefit claims from commercial payors to describe the spend,
ward utilization trend. As a result, per-member-per-month
trend, and utilization of medical benefit injectables from
costs were consistent with 2009 at just over $12, although
2009 and 2010, across all key sites of service. A review of
this flat trend is likely, in part, a result of the relatively
the medical pharmacy pipeline and new regulations are
aggressive cost-management efforts in place in many of the
also described within this report.
Six Key Medical Injectable Drug Management Drivers
Drivers
How Do You Know if Your Strategy Is Working?
Medical benefit drug formulary
Do you receive rebates? Are you encouraging the use of high-quality, lower-cost products?
Provider reimbursement
Does your approach improve drug mix and utilization?
Benefit design
What is your benefit plan for the next three years? Does it eclipse member contribution limits?
Distribution channel management
Does your strategy encourage provider-office administration?
Utilization management (UM)
Do your UM functions support standard of care prescribing and preferred products?
Operational improvements
What is your plan to correct payment errors and fraud?
Trend
TrendReport
Report2011
2010
methodology
2011 Survey Methodology
and Demographics
The methodology for this second edition of
ICORE Healthcare’s Medical Pharmacy &
Oncology Trend Report™ was developed with
guidance from our payor advisory board.
This report employs a combination of primary and secondary research methodologies to deliver a comprehensive
view of payor perceptions and health plan actions related to
medical injectables, including those used for chemotherapy
and supportive care.
•• The first section of the report was derived from a custom
market research survey conducted among commercial
health plan medical directors and pharmacy directors.
The Web survey was designed to gather feedback about
how managed care organizations operate around six
key management drivers for medical injectable drugs
identified by ICORE Healthcare.
•• The second section of the report was derived from
secondary analyses of health plan medical and
pharmacy paid claims data. An exciting addition to this
year’s report is that the analyzed claims data are from
various sites of service, regardless of where the drug
was infused or administered. In addition, this year’s
report evaluates multiple lines of business (LOB) (i.e.,
commercial, Medicare, managed Medicaid) to provide a
more comprehensive view of key oncology and medical
injectable trends among health plans.
Research topics were developed in conjunction with the
payor advisory board and align with the six key medical
injectable drug management drivers. The survey questions
were defined, and some questions were revised to provide
greater specificity over the 2010 survey version. The potential effect of the changes has been noted where appropriate
in the results. The questions were pretested, and the survey
was deployed to the sample audience via a secure browserbased software program hosted by Magellan Health
Services, ICORE Healthcare's parent company.
The period of data collection took place over a three-week
period during June and July 2011. Following data collection,
the results were validated, aggregated, and analyzed for
reporting herein.
For the purposes of this report, survey results are primarily reported on a percent-of-lives basis. Weighting individual responses in this manner provides an
indication of the potential marketplace impact of
payor policies on the number of covered
member lives, in addition to the percent of payors incorporating any
Health Plan Survey Methodology
As in our previous report edition, the target list of payors
consisted of the top 160 U.S. commercial health plans based
on number of lives covered. The sample was stratified based
on covered lives, national versus regional plans, geographic
dispersion, and medical versus pharmacy executives.
5
Trend Report 2011
6methodology
one policy. Survey results are also reported, at times, with
the health plans stratified into large- and small-sized plans,
defined as 500,000 or more lives and fewer than 500,000
lives, respectively.
Representation of survey respondents
Clinical
Director/VP
Medical
Director/VP
6%
of
lives
In certain cases, base sizes are small, and care should be
used when interpreting the data. Rarely, some percentages
may add to slightly more or less than 100 percent due to
rounding effects.
A total of 60 individual survey responses were received.
As noted in the table below, these 60 health plans manage 153.2 million lives, a slight increase over the 146.3 million
covered lives reported in 2010.
Seventy percent of the health plan organizations that
responded in 2011 also provided responses to the 2010 survey. When evaluating year-to-year trends, the entire sample
of 2011 respondents is compared with the respondents in
2010. The demographic composition of the year-to-year
respondents is consistent; only slight differences exist in the
composition of the base.
Survey Respondent Composition
Count
Lives
% of Lives
% of Plans
Fewer than
500,000
23
5,452,100
4%
38%
500,000 to
999,999
16
10,538,000
7%
27%
1,000,000 to
4,999,999
15
32,970,500
21%
25%
5,000,000 or
more
6
104,190,000
68%
10%
60
153,150,600
100%
100%
total
43%
of lives
51%
of lives
Pharmacy
Director/VP
Current survey respondents tended to be very experienced
with an average of 22 years in the field and nine years in
their current positions. Year to year, there was a similar
split between the lives represented by medical director
respondents (51 percent) and those of pharmacy directors/
clinical pharmacists (49 percent). Internal medicine, family
practice, and emergency medicine are the leading specialties reported by these health plan medical directors.
Of the total lives covered by the payors completing the survey, 77 percent are fully insured lives while the balance are
provided only administrative services by the health plan.
Survey respondents noted that the majority of their members (67 percent of lives) who receive coverage are covered
under mixed HMO/PPO products. Additionally, two-thirds of
total covered lives reflect commercial product coverage.
Survey respondents from national plans reflect 20 percent
of the respondents, yet they cover two-thirds (67 percent)
of the total lives represented in this survey. Conversely,
Trend Report 2011
methodology
regional plans have a larger percentage of payor respondents (80 percent), but reflect only 33 percent of the total
covered lives.
Where appropriate, the current 2010 paid claims data
are illustrated along with the key year-over-year trend
comparisons within this data set.
The map below illustrates that geographically about half
the covered lives of these regional payor respondents are
located in the nation’s heartland, with the balance divided
across the East and West Coast states.
Limitations of the Data/Discussion
Health Plan Claims Data Analyses
ICORE Healthcare analyzed health plan paid claims data that
included both paid medical and pharmacy claims for full year
2009 and 2010. These claims represent a proprietary data
set from a number of regional and national health plans. The
data set is complete in that we are able to look at the paid
claims across LOB, sites of service (SOS), and both the medical and pharmacy benefits. For example, the claims set is
inclusive of:
•• Commercial, Medicare, and managed Medicaid products
•• Multiple sites of service:
°° Medical claims – physician office, outpatient hospital,
home infusion, specialty pharmacy
°° Pharmacy claims – retail, specialty pharmacy
As with any data set, there are limitations. Because
the survey was conducted using self-selected survey
responses, it does not have the characteristics of a
randomly assigned sample. The responses were stratified based upon plan size, the respondents' medical
versus pharmacy responsibilities, and plan geography.
The sample is reflective of general market dynamics,
though care should be taken regarding its generalizability to the entire payor universe. Where appropriate,
statistically significant differences in 2011 over 2010 have
been noted. The claims analyses presented are subject
to the same limitations as all claims data – specifically,
the limitations of coding accuracy and other factors. A
strength of the claims data used in this report is that it
relies not on projections but represents allowed claims
actually paid by health plans. We have included 24
months of claims data (2009 and 2010) where available
to strengthen trending ability.
Regional Plans – Geographic Distribution of Lives
WEST
19% of
regional lives
EAST
28% of
regional lives
CENTRAL
53% of
regional lives
7
Trend Report 2011
8executive summary
Report Summary and Conclusions
ICORE Healthcare’s 2011 Medical Pharmacy & Oncology
Trend Report™ evaluated injectable quality and cost management tools and trends of senior leaders from commercial
payors and paid claims across LOB, SOS, and both the medical and pharmacy benefit.
•• The cost of claims for medical injectables used to
treat cancer account for about half of medical benefit
injectable costs associated with the claims analyzed.
Oral chemotherapies, which are generally paid under
the pharmacy benefit at a health plan, account for about
one-tenth of the total cost of drugs used to treat cancer.
Key findings of this report include:
•• The top 10 medical injectable drugs accounted for over
55 percent of the overall medical injectable benefit
spend in 2010.
•• Consistent with last year, at least some medical
injectable formulary management occurs at the vast
majority of payors, with supportive therapy, such as
ESAs, being the most common target.
•• Plans representing over three-fourths of the covered lives
receive rebates for at least one injectable paid under the
medical benefit. Biologic response modifiers (BRMs) are
the most common source for these rebates.
•• For the most part, average wholesale price (AWP)-based
reimbursement has been replaced by average sales price
(ASP) reimbursement.
•• Less than half of commercial payors (41 percent) subject
their members to a coinsurance for medical injectables,
and the average coinsurance amount is 20 percent of the
drug cost. Half of the payors also subject their members
to a drug copay.
•• Relatively few payors (18 percent) require only a
copay for medical injectable products, and that copay
averages $46.
•• Genomic testing continues to play an increasingly
important role in determining patient potential for
positive therapeutic outcomes; the majority of lives, for
instance, are subjected to HER2 (84 percent) or KRAS
(82 percent) testing prior to specific chemotherapeutic
selections.
•• Cost per claim varies widely for these products
depending on where the service to the patient occurs.
Costs associated with medical injectables infused within
a facility are about twice those of the same products
when administered in a provider’s office.
•• Significantly less than 1 percent of total spend is paid
under the classic “dump” code.
•• The pipeline for cancer drugs is very robust; breast
cancer continues to lead the clinical research field with
over 100 agents in either phase 2 or 3 trials across all
indications and lines of therapy.
•• The legislative environment continues to be challenging
and evolving at both the federal and state levels. This
is especially true in oncology where legislation around
off-label coverage, member contribution parity between
oral and IV therapies, biosimilars, and marketplace
dynamics shifting site of care out of the oncologist office
to facilities is creating pressure. This will likely result in
continued increases in the cost of care delivered across
the health care system, if the trend continues unabated.
•• Most payors offer breast cancer, colorectal cancer, and
prostate cancer screenings that aim to meet Healthcare
Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS)
measures; smoking cessation programs are offered to
a lesser degree. Compliance with these screenings is
variable, averaging 68 percent, 59 percent, 58 percent,
and 35 percent, respectively.
We know you will find this report novel and useful. Access the data at www.icorehealthcare.com/trends.aspx
Payor Survey Data
Payor Survey Data
10medical benefit drug formulary
Medical Benefit
Drug Formulary
The portion of lives under a chemotherapy formulary
was lower this year (57 percent versus 86 percent).
While this was a significant reduction, it is likely due
to an improved definition of chemotherapy in this
second edition report.
100%
35%
100%
75%
% of Total
%
% of
of
Lives
Total
Total Lives
Lives
Of the 100 million members most likely to be subjected to medical formulary requirements, almost
all were for ESAs and intravenous immune globulin (IVIG) products. Further, we found that BRMs
were under formulary management for two-thirds
of the members. This year, we asked an additional question as to which BRMs are subjected to
a medical formulary. A wide array of BRMs were
included, specifically, Remicade, Orencia, Enbrel,
Procrit, Humira, and Rituxan. See Figure 3, Therapeutic Classes With a Medical Formulary Currently in
Place.
|
fig. 1 Formularies in Place overall
Yes
No
Yes
No
35%
15%
75%
50%
15%
65%
50%
25%
50%
65%
25%
0%
50%
Formulary for injectable/
infusible drugs
Generally, the providers use
the products on the formulary*
*n = 22 payors, 77 million lives
0%
| Formularies in place by plan size
Under 500,000 Lives
500,000 Lives and Up
50%
60%
Under 500,000 Lives
52%
500,000 Lives57%
and Up
40%
50%
52%
fig. 2
60%
% of Respondents
%
% of
of Respondents
Respondents
In this year’s study of commercial payors, health
plans covering about two-thirds of lives (65 percent)
operate with established medical benefit injectable
drug formularies, which is not statistically different
from the 75 percent of covered lives reported by payors in 2010. Consistent with 2010, payors report that
their provider network generally complied with the
plans' formularies. The likelihood of having a formulary was directionally greater among the smaller payors, as defined by less than 500,000 member lives.
See Figure 1, Medical Benefit Injectable Formularies in
Place Overall, and Figure 2, Medical Benefit Injectable
Formularies in Place by Size of Health Plan.
30%
40%
48%
43%
57%
48%
43%
20%
30%
10%
20%
0%
10%
0%
Yes, we have a formulary
in place
No, we do not have a
formulary in place
Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs)
Intravenous immune globulin (IVIG)
Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV)
0%
Under 500,000 Lives
Payor Survey Data
60%
50%
% of Respondents
medical benefit drug formulary
57%
11
F
52%
48%
40%
Y
N
43%
30%
20%
10%
0%
|
Fig. 3 Therapeutic Classes with a Medical Formulary Currently in Place
2010
2011
F
89%
87%
81%
77%
80%
Colony-stimulating agents (G-CSFs)
76%
80%
Hemophilia
66%
64%
57%
0%
25%
50%
75%
% of Total Lives
% of Total Lives
n
N
M
P
N
M
R
L
86%
Chemotherapy
20%
F
74%
Biologic response modifiers (e.g., Orencia, Remicade, etc.)
40%
E
I
C
C
H
B
C
89%
We went a step further to better understand the
extent to which formularies impact individual chemotherapeutics. We identified seven cancers whose
Yes
No
treatments were commonly listed by payors as
80%
being under formulary management. Non-small cell
lung cancer (NSCLC)76%
was consistent at the top of
the list in this 2011 second edition, while the others
60%
decreased
from 2010. See Figure 4, Common Cancer
Types Where Payors Have at Least Some Medical
Drug Formulary in Place.
n
99%
100%
n = 28 payors, 109 million lives (2010)
|
Fig. 4 Common Cancer Types Under Formulary
Cancer Type
2010
% of lives
Non-small cell lung cancer
100%
Metastatic breast cancer
63%
Prostate cancer
63%
Non-Hodgkin lymphoma 24% 63%
Multiple myeloma
63%
Renal cell carcinoma
63%
Leukemia
63%
2011
% of lives
% Change
from 2010
100%
49%
49%
46%
46%
46%
46%
0%
-22%
-22%
-27%
-27%
-27%
-27%
76%
24%
Yes
No
F
Y
N
Payor Survey Data
12medical benefit drug formulary
Hemophilia
Chemotherapy
In 2011, plans covering three-fourths of the lives note
receiving rebates on medical injectable products, a
statistically significant increase over the 56 percent
reported a year ago. Compared with plans covering fewer than 500,000 lives, larger payors were 29
percent more likely to have established a rebate contract for at least one medical injectable product over
smaller plans (77 percent versus 48 percent, respectively). See Figure 5, Rebates Received From Drug
Manufacturers That Are Mainly Paid on the Medical
Benefit Overall, and Figure 6, Rebates Received From
Drug Manufacturers That Are Mainly Paid on the Medical Benefit by Size of Health Plan.
|
0%
Fig. 5 Rebates Received Overall
No, we do
not receive
rebates
80%
Yes
No
24%
of lives
76%
60%
% of Total Lives
Carrying forward the methodology used in ICORE
Healthcare’s 2010 Medical Pharmacy & Oncology
Trend Report™, the trend appears to demonstrate
that payors are becoming more sophisticated operationally to establish preferencing for drugs paid under
the medical benefit. In addition, plans appear to be
more capable of moving market shares to preferred
medical benefit injectable products. In some cases,
the preferred medical benefit injectable product has
a manufacturer’s rebate available to the health plan.
76%
of lives
40%
Yes, we
receive
rebates
20%
24%
|
Fig. 0%
6 Rebates Received by Plan Size
Under 500,000 Lives
80%
% of Respondents
77%
Nearly all payors who reported receiving rebates for
medical benefit injectables report receiving them
for BRM products. In contrast, reported rebates for
ESAs were significantly lower in 2011 – 54 percent
compared with 78 percent in 2010. See Figure 7,
Therapeutic Classes Where Payors Receive Injectable/
Infusible Product Rebates.
60%
59%
48%
40%
35%
20%
0%
Yes, we receive rebates (2010)
Yes, we receive rebates (2011)
76%
20%
24%
Payor Survey Data
0%
Under 500,000 Lives
medical benefit drug formulary
80%
% of Respondents
77%
60%
59%
48%
40%
35%
20%
|
Fig. 70%Therapeutic Classes with Rebates
2010
2011
74%
99%
78%
54%
N/A
37%
32%
36%
29%
Hemophilia
14%
N/A
14%
29%
Chemotherapy
9%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
% of Total Lives
13
Payor Survey Data
14provider reimbursement
Provider
Reimbursement
70%
% of %
Total
LivesLives
of Total
70%
60%
61%
60%
50%
61%
50%
40%
2010
2011
2010
2011
57%
57%
40%
30%
26% 26%
30%
20%
|
26% 26% 15%
10%
Fig.20%
9 Reimbursement Approach by Plan
5% Size
7%
10%
0%
ASP Plus
0%
15%
AWP
7% Minus
VFS
1% 0% 0%
n = 37 payors, 107 million lives
5%
AWP Plus
1% 0%Risk
0%
|
Fig. 9 Reimbursement
Approach by500,000
Plan Size
Under 500,000 Lives
Lives and Up
60%
60%
50%
% of %
Respondents
of Respondents
There was crossover this year between average
wholesale price minus-based (AWP minus) and
variable fee schedule-based (VFS) reimbursement
methodologies. About one in four covered lives has
benefits that take the traditional AWP approach to
provider reimbursement, with about 15 percent of the
lives subject to variable fee schedules, or reference
pricing. This appears to be partly due to experimental
error resulting from a different sample of responders, and partly driven by more frequent reports of
reimbursement under an AWP minus methodology
versus other approaches among smaller plans in 2011.
The number of lives where providers are reimbursed
under an AWP plus, or risk arrangement, approaches
zero. It is possible that payors using tight ASP-based
reimbursement are realizing several unintended consequences of such an approach: namely, the selection
of higher cost products (“more cost, more plus”) and
referrals to hospital outpatient for drug administration. See Figure 9, Reimbursement Approach and
the Extent of Discounts Used by Payors to Reimburse
for Drugs Paid Under the Medical Benefit by Size of
Health Plan.
|
Fig. 8 Reimbursement Approach Overall
50%
40%
Under 500,000 Lives
57%
48%
40%
30%
35%
30%
20%
35% 27%
27%
20%
10%
0%
100%
100%
80%
48% 57%
9% 11% 4% 5%
9% 11% 4% 5%
10%
0%
t Percentage
ement
Percentage
Typically, providers purchase oncolytics and other
infusible/injectable agents from a distributor, administer the drug to patients in their offices, and then bill
the patient’s insurance carrier for reimbursement of
the drug and associated administration costs under
the patient’s medical benefit. This method of distribution is commonly referred to as physician buy and bill.
About six of every 10 covered lives in the survey are
covered by plans that reimburse providers for medical
benefit injectables based upon a percentage above
the average sales price (ASP plus) methodology. This
is fairly consistent with 2010 findings, supporting the
hypothesis that many of the payors migrating to this
method of reimbursement have done so following
the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA) of 2005. See
Figure 8, Reimbursement Approach and the Extent
of Discounts Used by Payors to Reimburse for Drugs
Paid Under the Medical Benefit.
ASP Plus
AWP Minus
VFS
AWP Plus
99%
99%
80%
60%
60%
40%
40%
20%
25%
4%
4%
0%
0%
Risk
Low
Weig
Low
Weig
% of Respondents
10%
9% 11% 4% 5%
4%
0%
Low
35%
27%
provider
reimbursement
9% 11%
Weighted Mean
99%
100%
60%
80%
40%
6%
10%
25%
11%
0%
-16%
-20%
-40%
2010
2011
2010
ASP Plus
AWP-minus reimbursement, on average,
17% is with a 19 per10%
cent discount off of AWP, the range being consistent
with
0% found in the previous year. The AWP-plus base
what was
Internal
CMS
Vendor
sizes are small and thus subject to significant year-over-year
variances. The outliers could suggest that some health plan
executives still do not have specific knowledge of this level
of detail.
100%
One Year or More
0%
10%
6%
-19%
-22%
0%
-20%
% of Total Lives
Weighted
Weighted
2011
30%
6%25%
11%
6%
0%
2010
0%
2011
-16%
AWP Plus
Weighted Mean
100%
High
99%
Fig. 11 Development of Drug Reimbursement Strategies
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
75%
50%
6%
0%
-50%
100%
ASP Plus
7% 8%
0%
-16%
-22%
AWP Minus
AWP Plus
10%
Weighted Mean
Low
Internal/CMS
High
Vendor
75%
50%
One Year or More
25%
75%
6%
0%
30%
25%
11%
-50%
6%
0%
-19% -22%
76%
61%
39%
ASP Plus
8%
70%
2011
1
Less than One Year 50%
92%
-25%
25%
0%
0%
10%
-25%
100%
50%
90%
25%
24%
AWP Minus
71%
29%
AWP Plus
1 2010
-22%
Low
Less than One Year
The survey required payors to divide 100 points across each
92%use to set reimbursement strategies. On
of the sources they
75%
76%
a weighted average basis, commercial
payors are 71%
relying
more on their own internal resources than
on vendors. Spe61%
50%
cifically, their provider contracting departments, medical
39%influential,
and pharmacy directors, and finance teams are
25%
combined with assistance from the
Centers for Medicare 29%
&
24%
Medicaid Services (CMS).
Other
sources
of
influence
in
the
8%
0%
development
of payor reimbursement strategies include
vendors, such as a health plan’s reimbursement consultant
specialty pharmacy, pharmacy benefit manager (PBM), and
other companies. See Figure 11, How Payors Develop Their
Medical Benefit Drug Reimbursement Strategies.
Okon T, Coplon S, et al. Problems Facing Cancer Care with Medicare’s
Definition of Average Selling Price. Community Oncol. 2004;1(1):59-63.
www.communityoncology.net/co/journal/articles/0101059a.pdf.
Accessed September 2, 2011.
0%
20%
8%
7%
-40%
20%
0%
50%
40%
|
15
Low
Low
60%
-22%
4%
High
AWP Minus
The weighted mean percentage above ASP reported this
year was 11 percent, with the range from +6 percent (the
Medicare allowance) to +25 percent. This is nearly exactly
what was seen last year at ASP + 10 percent (p = ns). At the
time the
80%MMA reimbursement changes occurred for Medicare patients, the Community Oncology Alliance (COA), a
73%dedicated to community oncology
nonprofit organization
practice,
60%stated that ASP + 12 percent would be the minimum reimbursement to cover provider-administered drugs
and administration cost.1 Today, the average ASP-based
reimbursement
continues to be just below that threshold. See
40%
Figure 10, Range of Reimbursement Methodology Percentage
in Place for Injectables Paid Under the Medical Benefit.
4% 5%
99%
Reimbursement Percentage
0%
6%
Weighted Mean
20%
80%
% of Total Lives
20%
0%
|
Weighted Mean
57%
48%
10%
0%
Fig. 10 Reimbursement Percentage in Place
100%
Payor Survey Data
30%
27%
20%
40%
35%
30%
% of Respondent
48%
40%
-
-
Weighted
Mean
Weighted
M
Payor Survey Data
16provider reimbursement
Payors representing two-thirds of the member lives
have neither capitated nor case rate reimbursement
arrangements with their providers. Interestingly, a significant increase was seen in the percentage of covered lives where payors use both capitation and a case
rate (21 percent versus 3 percent in 2010). See Figure
13, Portion of Payor Lives That Capitate Reimbursement to Providers or Use Case Rates.
Further, payors who represent a third of covered lives
in 2011 have begun to explore pilot programs that
look at bundled payments for services with large,
in-network oncology groups. See Figure 14, Payors
Who Initiated Pilot Programs.
17%
17%
Internal
Internal
10%
10%
Vendor
Vendor
CMS
CMS
|
Fig. 12 DurationOne
ofYear
Current
Reimbursement
Strategies
or More
Less than One Year
% of
Lives
% Total
of Total
Lives
Payors reported several precipitating factors that
led to making these changes. Namely, these were to
address increased competitive market conditions and
increased network pressures, along with a need to
mimic CMS and demonstrate cost savings on medical
injectables.
20%
20%
0%
0%
100%
100%
75%
75%
50%
50%
25%
25%
0%
0%
One Year or More
92%
92%
Less than One Year
76%
76%
39%
39%
24%
24%
8%
8%
71%
71%
61%
61%
2010
2011
Length of Time
Methodology in Place
29%
29%
2010
2011
Last Time Percentage
Was Changed
|
Fig. 13 Payors who Capitate or Use Case Rates
% of
Lives
% Total
of Total
Lives
In 2011, payors representing 24 percent of commercial
managed care lives recently changed their medical
benefit injectable reimbursement methodology, which
is an increase from 2010 (8 percent). In addition, the
percent modification to payor reimbursement strategies was changed within the past year for 29 percent
of member lives. See Figure 12, The Duration of Current
Reimbursement Strategies at Health Plans.
40%
40%
70%
70%
60%
60%
50%
50%
40%
40%
30%
30%
20%
20%
10%
10%
0%
0%
2010
2010
67%
67%
2011
2011
53%
53%
37%
37%
21%
21%
Neither
5%
5%
3%
3%
Both
Don't Know
Capitate and
Case Rate
3% 5%
3% 5%
Capitate
Only
4% 2%
4% 2%
Case Rate
Only
|
Fig. 14 Payors Who Initiated Pilot Programs
36%
36%
64%
64%
36%
of lives
64%
No, we
have not initiated
pilot programs
of lives
Yes, we initiated pilot
programs to look at
bundled payments
for services
within large,
in-network
oncology groups
Payor Survey Data
Benefit Design
17
Benefit Design
|
Fig. 15 Predominant Member Contribution Requirements Overall
2010
2011
2010
2011
50%
% of Respondents
% of Respondents
40%
41%
43%
50%
30%
40%
20%
41%
27%
43%
21%
30%
10%
70%
20%
27%
20%
0%
21%
Require Neither
10%
10%
20%
Coinsurance % Only
Under 500,000 Lives
20%
18%
Require
Both
20%
18%
Copay $
Only
500,000
10%Lives and Up
|
Under 500,000 Lives
50%
70%
40%
60%
64%
30%
50%
28%
27%
20%
40%
21%
24%
22%
14%
10%
30%
0%
20%
28%
27%
21%
10%
Low
Weighted Mean
40%
0%
33%
Require Neither
33%
24%
22%
Coinsurance % Only
14%
High
Copay $
Only
33%
Low
N/A
33%
40%
Require
Both
urance Percentage
ntage
% of Respondents
% of Respondents
0%
Fig.
16 Predominant
Member Contribution Requirements by Plan Size
64%
60%
urance Percentage
ntage
Consistent with 2010, just under half the
payors reported their plans do not require
either a drug copay amount or drug coinsurance for medical injectables, which
looks to be driven by the smaller plans.
Of those that do require member contribution, it looks to be for either a drug
coinsurance only (25 percent) or a drug
copay only (20 percent). Very few payors
in 2011 are requiring both a copay and a
coinsurance as compared with 2010. See
Figure 15, Predominant Member Contribution for Injectables Paid Under the Medical
Benefit Overall, and Figure 16, Predominant Member Contribution for Injectables
Paid Under the Medical Benefit by Size of
Health Plan.
33%
30%
40%
Low
Weighted Mean
25%
33%
20%
17%
30%
20%
33%
20%
20%
33%
33%
33%
20%
18%
ICORE Healthcare, Medical Pharmacy
& Oncology Trend Report™ 17%
17%
30%
25%
High
30%
40%
33%
Low
20%
33%
Payor Survey Data
Benefit Design
30% 10%
10%
10%
10% to be year-over-year
10% consis10%
There appears
25%
40%
33%
30%
40%
20%
tency in copays for medical benefit inject20%
20% copay of $46 was
20%
able drugs. An average
20%
17%
reported in18%
2011, only a slight 17%
increase over
0%
the $43 average in 2010. The spread is greater
Lowfor largerWeighted
Mean
High
plans.
range exists
10%
10%
10% A more narrow10%
10%
10% $100
for smaller payors who may$100
have fewer
$100
plans to administer. Regarding copays for
medical injectables, payors accounting for
88
percent of the covered lives studied stated
0%
$80
$75
$75
they
will
maintain
the
current
level
of
copay
Low
Weighted Mean
High
for the remainder of
2011. See Figure 18,
$60
$100
$100
$60
Reported Copay Amounts for Medical Benefit
$100
$50
Injectables.
$46
$46
$45
$44
$43
$40
$80
$20
$60
$0
$40
$5
$43
$20
$5
$0
$75 medical injectable benefit claims are$75
Many
in
$26
$25
excess of $3,000.
This
is concerning due to
$20
$60 the member contrithe hypothesis that when
$10
$10
bution exceeds
$50
$5 $2,500 per year out of pocket
$46
$46
$45
$44
member medication compliance
is impacted.
A new design seems to be emerging where
coinsurances
$26are applied
$25 to a maximum
$20 $2,500
capped amount, generally between
and
$3,000
annually.
$10
$10
|
Fig. 17 Reported Coinsurance Amounts
Low
Weighted Mean
High
40%
33%
Coinsurance Percentage
17%
33%
It appears members subject to coinsurances
for medical benefit injectable drugs are being
asked to slightly increase their share of conLow
Weighted Mean
High
tribution this year, with the average being
20 percent of the claim cost in 2011 versus
17 percent in 2010. The larger 33%
payors have
a
33%
33%
wider range at the upper end than the smaller
plans. Almost all payors noted they would
25%
maintain the
same coinsurance
levels
through
Low
Weighted
Mean
High
the remainder of 2011. See Figure 17, Reported
20%
20%
20%
Coinsurance
Benefit
18%Amounts for Medical
17%
33%
33%
33%
Injectables.
33%
33%
33%
30%
Low
40%
20%
30%
10%
20%
0%
33%
17%
20%
33%
18%
10%
10%
10%
25%
20%
17%
2010
2011
All Lives
10%
$100
25%
Weighted Mean
18%
2010
20%
33%
17%
20%
33%
10%
10%
20%
20%
17%
2010
2011
Under 500,000 Lives
10% Low
10%
High
2011
Weighted
Mean
10%
10% High
10%
n = 22 payors,
76 million lives (2011)
$100
$100
|
0%
$75Amounts
Fig. 18$80Reported Copay
Copay Amount Copay Amount
18
$60
$100
Low
$100
$43
$46
$40
$80
$75
$20
$60
$0
$40
$5
$43
$10
$46
$60
Weighted
Mean
$50
$26
$50
$5
$26
$20
$10
$5
$5
$0
2010
2011
All Lives
$75
$45
High
$100
$46
$44
$75
$25
$60
$45
$20
$44
$25
$20
$5
2010
$10
$46
2011
Under 500,000 Lives
2010
$10
2011
Payor Survey Data
Benefit Design
Of those payors reporting a difference, it is related
to geographic competition, different insurance products, or each state’s Department of Insurance requiring maximum coinsurance rates based on various
lines of business. See Figure 19, Variable Member Cost
Share Requirements Across Different Plan Service
Areas Overall, and Figure 20, Variable Member Cost
Share Requirements Across Different Plan Service
Areas by Size of Plan.
|
Fig. 19 Member Cost Requirements Overall
No, my plan does
not have different
member cost-share
requirements
by state
Do not operate
in more than
one state
29%
of lives
40%
of lives
31%
Yes, my plan
has different
member cost-share
requirements by state
of lives
|
Fig. 20 Member Cost Requirements by Plan Size
Under 500,000 Lives
60%
% of Respondents
Looking across service areas, only one in three covered lives is subject to different member cost-share
requirements based on state requirements. This was
seen only with plans larger than a half million lives,
since smaller payors either don’t operate in more
than one state or do not have different requirements
across their service areas.
45%
8%
51%
of lives
49%
39%
30%
33%
28%
92%
of lives
15%
0%
0%
No, my plan does not
Yes, my plan has
have different
different member costmember cost-share share requirements
requirements by state
by state
1%
Do not operate
in more than
one state
of lives
6%
of
lives
62%
19
Payor Survey Data
20
Benefit Design
Weighted Mean 2010
100%
Weighted Mean 2011
HIGH
HIGH
80%
60%
56%
48%
40%
30%
26%
20%
0%
The survey asked payors to think ahead through the
remainder of 2011 and into 2012 and to consider the
likelihood of change to coinsurance responsibility
for their membership. Larger payors continue to be
more likely to have members with a medical benefit
injectable coinsurance when compared with smaller
payors. Looking forward, regardless of size, payors
overall intend to increase the percentage of members with a coinsurance, although the increases are
not statistically significant. See Figure 21, Percentage
of Member Lives Subject to a Coinsurance for Medical
Injectables by Size of Plan.
Further, among payors reporting coinsurances for
2012, the projected percentage assigned to medical
benefit injectables is 22 percent, a slight increase from
the 2011 reported coinsurance amount of 20 percent.
See Figure 22, Reported Coinsurance Amounts for
Medical Benefit Injectables in 2012.
Low
Weighted Mean
|
Weighted Mean
500K
and Up
15%
17%
10%
10%
40%
23%
< 500K
2012
45%
500K
and Up
0%
100%
50%
% of Members
|
Fig. 22 Coinsurance Amounts Projected for 2012
Low
Weighted Mean
High
40%
17%
15%
20%
23%
22%
18%
< 500K
2011
60%
22%
LOW
Fig. 21 Members subject to a Coinsurance by Plan Size
High
At times, payors employ coinsurances to put more
55%
“skin in the game” for their members for55%
drugs cov50% benefit. However, the tactic
ered under the medical
loses some punch once maximum out-of-pocket
45%
annual contributions are reached. A weighted average of 53 percent of the lives have an annual cap on
33% coinsurance out
33%
33%
their members’
of pocket, with the
30% weighted mean at $2,076 per year.
LOW
33%
33%
33%
22%
22%
23%
30%
20%
15%
10%
10%
10%
5%
0%
1%
1%
0%
All Lives
Under 500,000
Lives
500,000 Lives
and Up
Low
Weighted Mean
High
$150
$150
Low
$150
$150
$100
$100
$100
$100
unt
unt
$150
$100
$90
High
$150
$120
$120
$90
Weighted Mean
Benefit Design
Weighted Mean 2010
100%
Weighted Mean 2011
HIGH
HIGH
80%
60%
56%
48%
40%
30%
26%
20%
0%
17%
15%
0%
15%
17%
Among payors
10%
10% anticipating copays for 2012, the average amounts range from $5 to $150, with $64 being
5%
the weighted mean. 1%
Of note, members within smaller
1%
health plans have a higher baseline level, though a
narrower range than the larger health plans. This is
consistent with larger plans having a greater number
of employer contracts to manage and, thus, a greater
spread in copay amounts. See Figure 24, Reported
Low
Weighted Mean
High
Copay Amounts for Medical Benefit Injectables in 2012.
$150
$150
40%
Weighted Mean
17%
< 500K
201130%
500K
and Up
< 20%
500K
33%
33%
33%
22%
50%
22%
23%
17%
15%
52%
2012
500K
and Up
10%
10%
0%
10%
100%
50%
% of Members
0%
|
Fig. 24 Copay Amounts Projected for 2012
Low
$150
$150
Weighted Mean
$150
High
$150
$120
$100
$100
$100
$100
$90
$64
$64
$54
$48
$48
$37
$25
$30
$4
$0
LOW
|
$120
$60
LOW
Fig. 23 MembersLow
Subject toWeighted
a CopayMean
By Plan Size
High
Both small and large payors report that the portion of
their membership
that
has a medical
injectLow
Weighted
Mean benefit
High
able
copay
will
remain
about
the
same
next
year.
Of
60%
55%
55% higher
note, the large payors reported a significantly
50% subject to a copay in 2011
percentage of members
(50
percent),
as
compared
with their 2011 projections
45%
in last year's survey (24 percent). Larger payors report
half of their
members will be 33%
subjected to a medical
33%
33%
benefit injectable copay. See Figure 23, Percentage of
30%
Members Subject to a Copay for Medical Injectables by
23%
22%
22%
Size of Plan.
20%
$5
$4
Copay Amount
Copay Amount
Payor Survey Data
$100
$90
$60
$54
$30
$10
$64
$64
$25
$5
$5
$0
All Lives
$5
Under 500,000
Lives
500,000 Lives
and Up
21
Low
$100
$100
$100
$90
$64
$60
$64
$54
$48
$25
In 92 percent of the lives in which member contribution parity exists, respondents noted it is due to state law. Those
payors who do not currently report contribution parity commonly indicated that they were working toward oral versus IV
contribution parity for 2012. Moreover, plans that were most
interested in this parity are the same plans that are looking
to establish medical homes and accountable care organizations. See Figure 26, Member Contribution Parity Mandated
by State Law.
Genomic testing continues to play an important role in
determining patient potential for positive treatment outcomes. HER2 testing2 in advance of breast cancer therapy
and KRAS testing3 in advance of colorectal cancer therapy
are the norm for four of every five members across all
health plans. Six in 10 members are subject to an Oncotype DX4 test should the need arise, but only about one
in three would need a CD4 count5 if receiving therapy
for HIV. Other tests that payors are contemplating coverage rules include those for the breast cancer susceptibility genes (BRCA) and epidermal growth factor receptor
(EGFR). Since testing can vary significantly with these
assays, fewer than half the payors reported having a relationship with a reference lab for these tests; the highest
was reported at 49 percent for KRAS testing. See Figure
27, Genomic Test Requirements Before Chemotherapy.
More information on these tests may be accessed at:
KRAS – www.kras-info.com
HER2 – www.herceptin.com/hcp/HER2-testing
Oncotype DX – www.oncotypedx.com
CD4 count – www.cd4.org
KRAS (Kirsten RNA associated rat sarcoma 2 virus gene) testing is a new biomarker being
used to select the best treatment for individual colorectal patients.
3 HER2 (human epidermal growth factor receptor 2) testing is an important predictive and
prognostic factor in breast cancer.
4 Oncotype DX testing is a unique diagnostic test available to both breast cancer and colon
cancer patients to help with treatment decisions.
5 CD4 testing measures the number of helper T cells to analyze the prognosis of patients
infected with HIV.
2 $5
$4
$0
$10
$4
$5
|
Fig. 25 Member Contribution Parity
2010
80%
% of Lives
2011
74%
29%
60%
of lives
40%
of lives
54%
46%
40%
26%
20%
0%
31%
of lives
Yes, we have member
contribution parity
No, we do not have member
contribution parity
|
Fig. 26 Parity Mandated by State Law
8%
No, this is not
mandated by
state law
Yes, mandated by s
No, not mandated b
of lives
8%
92%
of lives
Yes, this is
mandated by
92%
state law
|
Fig. 27 members subject to Genomic Test Requirements
1%
of lives
2010
80%
100%
60%
80%
of
lives
2010
2011
84% 84% 84% 82%
62%
of lives
60%
60%
84% 84%
of lives 84% 82% 56%
40%
60%
56%
61%
20%
40%
0%
20%
0%
2011
6%
100%
% of Lives
% of Lives
About half the covered lives in the survey are subject
to contribution parity, a statistically significant increase
over the level reported last year (26 percent). Parity is
noted primarily in relation to orals versus IV, Part B/Part
D administered drugs, or self-administered options. This
is likely a result of states that have enacted or have pending legislation looking to equalize member contributions
for oral and IV products. States and employers alike are
looking to equalize the member contribution regardless
if the drug is paid under the medical or pharmacy benefit. See Figure 25, Member Contribution Parity Between
IV and Oral Products With Similar Indications.
$48
$37
$30
Oral versus Intravenous
$100
Copay Amount
Benefit Design
$150
$120
Copay Amount
22
High
$150
$150
Payor Survey Data
Weighted Mean
60%
of lives
HER2
Testing
KRAS
Testing
Oncotype
DX
32%
N/A
32% 32%
CD4
Count*
0% 2%
Other
*new answer selection in 2011
2% 2%
32% 32%
1%
20%
0%
6%
1%
60%
60%
62%
6%
61%
KRAS testing
Oncotype DX
HER2 testing
2%
CD42%
Count
Other
Payor Survey Data
Benefit Design
KRAS testing
Oncotype DX
HER2 testing
CD4 Count
Other
62%
|
Most members of commercial health plans (83 percent of covered lives) were enrolled in plans that
featured established61%
National Committee for Quality Assurance HEDIS cancer screening or prevention
Yes
programs, a slight increase from last year. No
Breast
and colorectal cancer screenings, along with medical assistance with smoking cessation, are part of
the 2011 HEDIS
17%measures. This is clearly driven by the
large plans, as 38 percent of the payor respondents
Yes
No
reported not having programs in place.
2010
2011
100%
80%
83%
2010
81%
2011
% of Lives
100%
60%
% of Lives
Breast cancer and colorectal cancer screening
programs 17%
were most commonly available to members, with prostate cancer
83% detection and smokingcessation programs also offered to more than half the
members. Prevention programs were nearly always
developed internally at the health plans. See Figure
28, HEDIS Cancer Screening or Prevention Programs
in Place, and Figure83%
29, Specific HEDIS Prevention
Programs Established.
Fig. 28 Screening or Prevention Programs in Place
|
Mammography
(BCA)
Fig. 29
HEDIS Prevention
Programs Established
80%
40%
83%
81%
60%
20%
19%
40%
0%
Yes, we have HEDIS cancer
No, we do not have HEDIS
screening/prevention programs screening/prevention programs
in place
in place
20%
2010
2011 19%
17%
0%
100%
98%
2010
2011
100%
100%
Colonoscopy (CRC)
Mammography (BCA)
82%
98%
77%
PSA testing (prostate CA)
Colonoscopy (CRC)
65%
59%
Smoking prevention (NSCLC)
53%
0%
25%
53%
2010
Mammography (BCA)0%
25%
Colonoscopy (CRC)
50%
% of Total Lives
77%
65%
75%
100%
2011
75%
54%
2011
58%
2010
100%
82%
50%
% of Total59%
Lives
Mammography (BCA)
17%
72%
68%
100%
72% Trend Report™
ICORE Healthcare, Medical Pharmacy & Oncology
21%
35%
68%
23
% of Li
Payor Survey Data
83%
20%
Benefit Design
19%
17%
0%
2010
2011
100%
Mammography (BCA)
98%
100%
Colonoscopy (CRC)
82%
Changes in compliance with mammography and colonoscopy
screening programs were consistent with results reported in
PSA testing
(prostate
2010.
Interestingly,
weCA)
saw large increases in the percentage of
members complying with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing
(59 percent versus 17 percent in 2010) and smoking-cessation
programs (35 percent versus 21 percent in 2010). See Figure
Smoking
prevention
(NSCLC)
30, Most
Recent Percentage
of Member Compliance by Cancer
Screening Program.
|
0%
Fig. 30 Member Compliance
by Screening 25%
Program
77%
65%
59%
53%
50%
% of Total Lives
75%
2010
100%
2011
72%
Mammography (BCA)
68%
54%
Colonoscopy (CRC)
58%
21%
35%
17%
59%
0%
20%
40%
Average % of Member Compliance
2010
60%
80%
2011
60%
55%
50%
40%
45%
55%
% of Lives
24
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
45%
55%
45%
59%
0%
25%
0%
25%
Mammography (BCA)
50%
53%
% of Total Lives
75%
50%
% of Total Lives
2011 75%
Payor Survey Data
2010
17% 21%
35%
20%
For members receiving insurance from payors who
have separate end-of-life benefits, few payors allow
the plan sponsor to purchase a separate rider for
this coverage. The most common number of days of
hospice care included in this benefit was reported at
about five to six months this year, where it was noted
at about two to three months on average lastNo
year. We
view this as a positive change over last year,Yes
as hospice should be offered when members have months to
No
live, not days to live.
80%
40% Care Programs60%
Fig. 31 Palliative
Provided
80%
|
2010
60%
40%
50%
45%
30%
40%
45%
55%
45%
45%
Yes, we provide end-of-life
programs
No, we do not provide end-oflife programs
0%
|
2010
2011
2010
2011
Fig. 32
100%Palliative Care Program Coverage
100%
75%
80%
75%
50%
80%
47%
50%
25%
47%
53%
53%
20%
0%
f Payors
55%2011
10%
20%
25%
0%
40%
50%
55%
2011
20%
30%
0%
10%
% of Lives
% of Lives
53%
2010
55%
50%
60%
Yes
53%
59%
40%
60%
59%
% of Lives
% of Lives
17%
This year, we saw a statistically significant increase in
45%
the number of members offered a separate benefit
55%
for these palliative care programs, where most were
45%under the medical benefit last year. See Figcovered
ure 32, Palliative Care Program
55% Coverage.
50%
60%
58%
35%
The 2011 survey noted an increase in the percentage
20%
of covered lives provided 0%
with an option for palliative care programs (55 percent versus 45 percent in
2010). Respondents offering such benefits report that
their programs tend to include case management,
care management, hospice, and other palliative care
options. See Figure 31, Palliative Care Programs Provided for Membership.
63%
68%
54%
21%
PSA testing (prostate CA) 0%
60%
70%
72%
58%
Smoking
prevention
(NSCLC)
PSA testing
(prostate
CA)
70%
Benefit
Design
68%
2011
54%
Colonoscopy
(CRC)
Smoking prevention
(NSCLC)
47%
100%
72%
2010
Mammography
Colonoscopy (BCA)
(CRC)
47%
100%
20%
Programs covered as a
separate benefit
Programs covered as a general
medical benefit
63%
25
0%
Payor Survey Data
No
Yes
Benefit Design
100%
47%
% of Lives
75%
53%
50%
25%
Last year, payors reported that their employer groups
were becoming a significant driver in the development of future drug benefit designs; we see this
effect continuing through 2011. In addition, this year,
payors noted their employer groups are interested in
learning about cancer management, medical management, curtailing growth in specialty spend, utilization data, and increased cost sharing. Specific
to oncology, employers are requesting payors to
provide cost-control initiative programs that ensure
appropriate use and access and methods to provide
more benefit with less cost. See Figure 34, Level of
Employer Engagement With Health Plans in Developing Benefit Designs by Size of Plan.
|
Fig. 33 Payors Monitoring Member Participation
70%
60%
63%
50%
% of Payors
Of those plans that offer end-of-life/palliative care
programs for their membership, 13 percent reported
they measure member participation in this benefit and know the actual portion of members who
qualify and participate, though these payors account
for just 2 percent of covered lives. The self-reported
weighted average percentage of participation was
10 percent among membership. The vast majority of
payors measure this; they just do not have a handle
on the utilization of the benefit top of mind. See Figure 33, Portion of Payors Who Know the Percentage of
Eligible Members Who Actually Participated in These
Palliative Care Programs in the Last Year.
40%
30%
20%
23%
10%
13%
0%
Measure, but don’t
know percentage
Do not measure
Measure and know
percentage
|
Under 500,000 Lives
74%
Under 500,000 Lives
68%
80%
Fig.
34 Level of Employer Engagement by Plan Size
% of Respondents
% of Respondents
26
80%
60%
74%
60%
40%
68%
32%
40%
20%
26%
20%
0%
26%
32%
0%
No difference
0%
0%
0%
0%
More engaged than Less engaged than
last year at this time last year at this time
0%
Payor Survey Data
Distribution Channel Management
Distribution Channel
Management
The survey asked payors to describe distribution channels for chemotherapies as well as other nonchemotherapy infused drugs billed under the medical benefit. When
providers administer infused chemotherapies in their
office, about two-thirds of the volume is billed through a
buy-and-bill process, where the provider has purchased
the drug and then invoices the payor for reimbursement
under the patient medical benefit.
Specialty pharmacies provide approximately one-fourth
of the chemotherapeutic drugs infused in the provider’s
office; this channel serves a minor portion of chemotherapy acquisition for good reason, as specialty pharmacy
acquisition costs are 17 percent higher on a weighted
average basis than in the provider’s office. Moreover,
approximately 20 percent of drugs shipped to a provider’s
office fail to be used due to, for example, changes in dose,
therapy, duration of therapy, benefit, and higher costs,
since partial vial use is not possible when billing NDC-11
codes to the pharmacy benefit.7 See Figure 36, Percentage
of Medical Injectable/Infused Drug Volume Distributed to
Members Through Various Billing Processes.
|
Fig. 35 Percentage of Medical Injectable Claims Billed
2010
50%
Weighted Mean % of Billed Claims
Consistent with the 2010 survey results, payors tell us that
about half of all medical injectables are administered to
members in their providers’ offices and submitted for
reimbursement under the traditional buy-and-bill process.
Outpatient administration represents an average of onequarter of the billed claims, and home infusion represents
15 percent of medical injectable billed claims. Inpatient
administration increased slightly to 12 percent in 2011 from
the 10 percent reported in 2010. This is likely to amplify in
the future as payors continue to tighten reimbursement to
mimic Medicare rates and as private practices are being
purchased by hospital systems and then moving outpatient facility administration to leverage more favorable
340B pricing and higher payor reimbursement. In fact, a
study by the COA last year found that over 300 oncology practices were bought by hospitals in the previous
four years.6 See Figure 35, Average Percentage of Medical
Injectable/Infusible Claims Billed From Each Site of Service.
2011
44% 45%
40%
30%
27%
20%
25%
18%
10%
15%
10%
12%
1% 2%
0%
Physician
Office
Outpatient
Home Health
Inpatient
Pharmacy
Benefit
|
Fig. 36 Drug Volume Distributed in Physician Office
Weighted Average Volume
primary Billing Processes
Infused Chemo
Drugs
Infused nonChemo Drugs
Physician buy and bill (provider uses
stock and bills plan)
64%
38%
Specialty pharmacy provider (a
pharmacy or distributor ships to
provider's office and provider does not
bill for the drug)
25%
44%
Other
6%
7%
Brown bag (member takes drug to the
provider's office for administration)
5%
11%
Community Oncology Cancer Care Practice Impact Report. Community Oncology Alliance website.
http://communityoncology.org/UserFiles/files/87f3205e-ee73-4b03-85fb-094870cc430d/COA%20
Community%20Oncology%20Practice%20Impact%20Report%203-31-11(1).pdf. Accessed October 17, 2011.
6 Johnson K. Back to the Future. Managed Care Onc. 2011;2:5-6.
7 ICORE Healthcare, Medical Pharmacy & Oncology Trend Report™
27
Payor Survey Data
28Utilization management
Utilization
Management
Utilization management is a valuable tool that health plans employ to
encourage appropriate use and dosing and to monitor site of service
dynamics. About three-fourths of members are enrolled in plans that
have implemented utilization management programs for provideradministered injectables. Most payors use prior authorization (PA)
as the primary utilization management tool. See Figure 37, Managing
Utilization of Injectable/Infusible Products Administered by a Provider.
|
Fig. 37 Managing Utilization of Products
No, we do
not manage
utilization of
provideradministered
injectables
26%
Looking at selected classes of medical injectables, we found those
with the most management (subjected to PA for at least 50 percent of members) appear to be IVIG, chemotherapies, ESAs, and
BRMs. Guidelines developed by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) were the most commonly used tool to ensure
appropriate use for chemotherapies; case management and disease
management were also commonly employed. Only 8 percent of the
lives were subjected to one or more chemotherapy pathway; for the
most part, pathway programs were pilot studies and not implemented
across the majority of the plans' membership. Drugs used for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) were least likely to be
subjected to PAs, though formularies and differential reimbursement
were used to manage utilization for nearly half of the lives studied.
Colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) have the largest percentage of
lives with none of the restrictions noted. See Figure 38, Utilization
Management Tools Used for Medical Injectable/Infusible Products in
the Specific Therapeutic Classes.
of lives
74%
of lives
Yes, we
manage
utilization
of provideradministered
injectables
|
Fig. 38 Utilization Management Tools by Class
Therapeutic Class
Intravenous immune
globulin (IVIG)
Prior
Authorization
Case
Management
60%
46%
Disease
Clinical Pathway Differential
Step Edit
Failure of
NCCN
Formulary
Management
Guidelines
Reimbursement Requirements Generic First Guidelines Presence
42%
28%
30%
34%
of lives
4%
0%
29%
58%
of lives
None
40%
3%
Chemotherapy
58%
41%
42%
8%
1%
3%
1%
61%
10%
2%
Erythropoiesisstimulating agents (ESAs)
58%
37%
32%
36%
42%
5%
10%
42%
37%
3%
Colony-stimulating
agents (G-CSFs)
49%
36%
30%
7%
42%
3%
0%
8%
36%
13%
Biologic response
modifiers (e.g., Orencia,
Remicade, etc.)
63%
28%
31%
30%
27%
21%
4%
28%
43%
3%
Hemophilia
49%
49%
34%
29%
27%
1%
0%
0%
36%
10%
Chemotherapy-induced
nausea and vomiting (CINV)
23%
4%
1%
5%
43%
14%
10%
20%
43%
4%
Payor Survey Data
Utilization management
This year, we see that prostate cancer is the oncology
therapy most commonly subjected to utilization management tools. The reason for this is twofold: 1) Luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analogs (LHRHa)
are also used for infertility treatments that are an infrequently covered benefit, and 2) the introduction of
sipuleucel-T (Provenge), which has been reported to cost
$93,000 per patient.8 We also noted an increase in utilization management for drugs used to treat renal cell
carcinoma, which is likely due to the increasing number
of oral therapeutic options available. NSCLC also continues to be managed at a high level. As noted earlier,
PA, NCCN guideline adherence, edits, genetic tests prior
to initial therapy, claims edits for appropriate diagnosis,
and retrospective drug utilization review continue to be
common methods that payors employ. See Figure 39,
Cancer Types Most Commonly Subjected to Medical Utilization Tools.
8
Szabo L. FDA Approves $93K Prostate Cancer Vaccine. USA Today.
April 30, 2010. www.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-04-30prostatevaccine30_ST_N.htm. Accessed September 2, 2011.
|
Fig. 39 Cancers Subjected to Medical Utilization Tools
2010 % of lives
2011 % of lives
Year-overYear % Change
Prostate cancer
59%
94%
59%
Non-small cell lung cancer
85%
83%
-2%
Renal-cell carcinoma
54%
75%
39%
Metastatic breast cancer
59%
70%
19%
Leukemia
48%
69%
44%
Non-Hodgkin lymphoma
49%
66%
35%
Multiple myeloma
56%
62%
11%
29
Payor Survey Data
Remicade, Rituxan, and Avastin are subject to PA for roughly
half of the covered lives. As in the past, case management
continues to be an important tool health plans employ to
monitor utilization. Step edit requirements seem to be utilized along with case management for Alimta therapy. Avastin, Herceptin, and Erbitux reflect the largest percentage
associated with pathways as a management tool, consistent
with the use of genomic testing prior to therapy. Formularies are noted as a tool where oral and IV therapy alternatives
coexist. Similar to 2010, few payors reported not using any
medical injectable management tools or controls. See Figure 40, Management Tools Used for Common Medical Injectable Therapies.
We asked payors whether they manage primarily to a specific drug or to cancer therapeutic categories. Payors representing 58 percent of the lives look to manage the drug
entity itself. Payors still look to indication by the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) and compendia listing when
developing PA criteria. Plans representing about threefourths of the covered lives also have a policy to approve
a medical injectable drug if the member has failed the
medication in the past. This year, we see a jump in criteria
looking for specific concomitant medications, which would
be expected with so many therapies to treat increasingly
required drug combinations. See Figure 41, Specific Prior
Authorization Criteria That May Be Required.
|
Fig. 40 Management Tools for Common Therapies by Percent of Lives
Prior
Authorization
Case
Management
Disease
Management
Clinical Pathway
Guidelines
Differential
Reimbursement
Formulary
Presence
Step Edit
Requirements
Failure of
generic first
None
Remicade
49%
42%
29%
18%
1%
14%
11%
1%
3%
Rituxan
48%
45%
27%
21%
1%
10%
3%
0%
1%
Drugs
Avastin
47%
47%
27%
36%
1%
9%
2%
0%
1%
Herceptin
43%
20%
2%
36%
1%
9%
1%
0%
3%
Cerezyme
43%
46%
29%
13%
1%
36%
1%
0%
3%
Erbitux
42%
20%
1%
33%
1%
9%
1%
0%
7%
Aloxi
27%
44%
27%
18%
16%
37%
7%
1%
4%
Abraxane
25%
42%
29%
19%
16%
9%
8%
0%
5%
Taxotere
25%
17%
0%
18%
3%
9%
3%
0%
4%
Eloxatin
25%
46%
28%
16%
3%
36%
1%
0%
4%
Gemzar
25%
47%
28%
18%
1%
9%
1%
0%
7%
Zometa
24%
48%
27%
13%
3%
38%
1%
1%
8%
Alimta
20%
46%
28%
19%
16%
9%
46%
0%
9%
Fig
Payor Survey Data
Utilization management
Dr
Re
31
Rit
Av
He
Ce
Erb
Alo
Ab
Ta
Elo
Ge
Zo
|
Ali
Fig. 41 Specific Prior Authorization Criteria
2010
2011
99%
100%
FDA indication
FD
Pr
Do
Tr
Co
Ap
78%
78%
73%
Prior therapy failure
Dose to weight in therapeutic range for indication
61%
61%
Treatment cycle/interval tracking
55%
54%
Compendia listing
Fig
n=
85%
28%
Appropriate concomitant medications
50%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
% of Total Lives
|
When asked about top concerns around medical injectFig. 42 Top Medical Injectable Concerns in 2011
ables in 2011, over half the payors mentioned the overall
cost of these agents. Appropriate utilization and new
medical Injectable concern
% of Payors
therapies were each mentioned by 17 percent of payors.
Overall cost
57%
We also asked payors to define the key driver of oncology
cost increases. Manufacturer pricing action was noted by
Appropriate utilization
17%
by the specific drug
plans representing two-thirds of the lives;Manage
the balance
New therapies
17%
Manage by the herapeutic
cancer category
believe the driver is related to increased drug utilization.
Price
increases
8%
See Figure 42, Top Medical Injectable Concerns in 2011.
42%
58%
Biologics
7%
Expansion on drug indications
5%
IVIG
5%
Fraud
2%
Do
et
M
M
Fig
Ov
Ap
Ne
Pr
Bio
Ex
payor Survey Data
Virtually all payors noted their PA criteria and medical policy
development and execution are created internally. When it
comes to therapeutic or oncology treatment guidelines, these
are frequently developed externally to the plan, often utilizing the expertise of the oncologist community. See Figure 43,
Where Management Services Are Developed at Health Plans.
|
Fig. 43 Where Management Services Are Developed
Internal
External
None
100%
PA criteria development
0%
0%
100%
Medical policy development
0%
0%
99%
PA execution/implementation
1%
0%
58%
Implementation of oncology treatment guidelines
24%
18%
51%
Written adherence to oncology treatment guidelines
4%
45%
36%
Therapeutic guidelines
40%
23%
25%
Development of oncology treatment guidelines
28%
17%
0%
20%
40%
60%
% of Total Lives
80%
100%
payor Survey Data
operational improvements
Operational
Improvements
|
Fig. 44 Post-Claim Edits Conducted
Appropriate dosing regimens
54%
Appropriate dosing on weight-based medications
50%
FDA label indications
46%
Adherence to treatment guidelines
44%
Not conducting edits
30%
Accuracy of claims pricing
26%
0%
15%
30%
% of Total Lives
45%
60%
|
Payors continue to use post-claim edits for providerFig. 45 Implementation of Post-Claim Edits
Internal
administered injectables paid under the member’s
Not
Conducting Edits
medical benefit. Payors have commented that
while
External
9%tools may capture severe outliers,
External vendor
vendor
existing edit
detailed content is needed to optimize the opportu9%
nity. Claims reviews conducted to monitor appropriof lives
ate dosing regimens overall, as well as appropriate
weight-based
medications, are likely for over half the
30%
covered lives. Additional edits are designed to assess
61%
off-label or off-standard-of-care use and to mitigate
30%
claim pricing errors. Of those conducting reviews,
of lives
almost all are developed and conducted by internal
61%
of lives
health plan staff. See Figure 44, Post-Claim Edits ConNot
conducting
ducted on Medical Injectable Claims, and Figure 45,
edits
Implementation of Post-Claim Edits.
Internal
4%
41%
4%
Yes, overall
No, not manaing utilization
Yes, for diagnostic only
Yes, for treatment only
51%
4%
4%
of lives
of lives
33
0%
0%
Not conducting edits
payor Survey Data
Accuracy of claims pricing
9%
30%
26%
of lives
0%
34operational improvements
15%
30%
% of Total Lives
Weighted Mean
High
Low
40%
45%
40%
30%
30%
22%
22%
|
15%
20%
30%generally fall within the medical
Radiation oncology treatments
benefit at most health plans. Figure 46 illustrates
that radiation
61%
oncology, regardless of whether for diagnostic or treatment
10%
purposes, is being managed by health plans for the majority
(51 percent) of the covered lives represented in the 2011 survey.
See Figure 46, Health Plans That Manage Radiation Oncology
0%
Benefits.
33% 61%
of lives
23%
Fig. 46 Manage Radiation Oncology Benefits
10%
Yes, for
diagnostic
only
10%
4%
4%
of lives
Yes, for
treatment
only
Copay Amount
$54
$60
$25
$5
10%
$150
$120
$90
$60
$30
$10
$4
$5
$0
24%
of lives
Fig. 47 Programs to Encourage Site-of-Service Shift
2010
Yes
80%
76%
of lives
Does your health plan have programs in place to60%
encourage a shift of care for medical injectables
from one site of service to another?
% of Lives
$48
$37
$0
59%
2011
No
74%
41%
54%
46%
40%
After implementation of a fee schedule in the outpatient20%
setting, has your plan seen a shift toward patients being
treated at a hospital or infusion center?
20%
0%
Approximately two–thirds of payors' lives have a fee sched- $48
ule for infusion centers or hospitals, although the robustness
$30
of these schedules is highly variable since they are commonly
based upon a “percentage of charges” model where the center
$4
or hospital develops a charge master.
|
30%
of lives
About two-thirds of members were enrolled in payors who have
implemented programs to manage untoward site-of-service
Low
Weighted Mean
High
shifts, although the success of these programs is generally not
4%
51%
41%
$150
$150
known. Programs such as differential
reimbursement or manof lives
4%
$150
Yes, overallof lives
dated specialty pharmacy have been implemented to encourNo, not manaing utilization
age the provision of care in the provider or home setting and
Yes, for diagnostic only
away from the inpatient or outpatient hospital setting.$120
After No,Yes,
not for treatment only
implementation of a fee schedule in the outpatient setting, only$100
managing
$100
$100
$100 Yes, overall
36 percent of members are subjected to a shift toward being utilization
$90
treated at a hospital or infusion center. See Figure 47, Programs
to Encourage Site-of-Service Shift.
51%
$64
$64
41%
Internal
33%
33%
Not Conducting Edits
External vendor
Copay Amount
9%
of lives
26%
36% 59%
64%
41%
0%
Do you have a fee schedule
for infusion centers or hospitals?
61%
0%
20%
39%
40%
60%
% of Total Lives
80%
100%
Yes, mandated
by state la
No, not mandated by sta
Health Plan Claims Data
36
Trend drivers
Trend Drivers
Based on analysis of 24 months of paid medical benefit
injectable claims, a 1-million-life commercial plan will have
averaged $178 million in medical benefit injectable costs in
2010 across all sites of service. Of that, the top 25 medical
drugs comprised more than 82 percent of the total medical
injectable spend, which is consistent with 2009 where the
top 25 J codes represented 84 percent. In 2010, Remicade
was the largest overall spend per 1 million insured lives,
just edging Avastin, which saw a year-over-year decline of
7.6 percent in the paid claim amount. This is likely a reflection of decreased provider utilization of Avastin for meta-
static breast cancer (mBC), as the uncertainty of the FDA's
position regarding the mBC indication has unfolded over
the last year. This, however, is likely to stabilize in 2011. Gammagard had an upward trend in spend during 2010, likely
due to limitations in supply of other IVIG products. Lucentis
had a significant upward trend as well; this is believed to be
due to direct marketing to physicians and some plan preferencing for the product's use to treat wet macular degeneration. See Figure 48, Top 25 Medical Injectable Drugs by
Allowed Amount per 1 Million Lives.
|
fig. 48 Top 25 Medical Benefit Specialty Drugs (All Lines of Business and Sites of Service)
2009
2010
Ranking
J Code
Units Per 1 M Lives
Calculated Cost Per Unit
Allowed Per 1 M Lives
Remicade
1
J1745
198,733
$84.69
$16,565,188
$16,831,355
1.6%
Avastin
2
J9035
217,208
$77.33
$18,179,915
$16,797,540
-7.6%
Neulasta
3
J2505
4,796
$3,242.84
$15,370,300
$15,551,250
1.2%
Rituxan
4
J9310
18,392
$672.74
$12,379,824
$12,373,250
-0.1%
Herceptin
5
J9355
102,327
$79.60
$8,162,733
$8,145,277
-0.2%
Lucentis
6
J2778
18,446
$391.22
$4,680,999
$7,216,687
54.2%
Taxotere
7
J9171
285,171
$22.94
$7,347,321
$6,542,993
-10.9%
-9.7%
Drug
% Change
Advate
8
J7192
2,041,663
$2.68
$6,062,683
$5,474,438
Gammagard
9
J1569
66,516
$75.82
$4,480,838
$5,043,225
12.6%
Eloxatin
10
J9263
404,990
$11.62
$7,671,378
$4,705,059
-38.7%
Alimta
11
J9305
78,597
$58.09
$4,207,658
$4,565,757
8.5%
Gemzar
12
J9201
23,024
$183.52
$4,200,409
$4,225,284
0.6%
Gamunex
13
J1561
53,906
$75.48
$3,161,805
$4,068,691
28.7%
Procrit
14
Q4081
3,244,100
$1.10
$4,500,414
$3,573,004
-20.6%
Zometa
15
J3487
13,034
$270.73
$3,400,805
$3,528,521
3.8%
Aranesp
16
J0881
895,456
$3.74
$4,248,157
$3,351,996
-21.1%
Erbitux
17
J9055
46,852
$68.61
$3,599,703
$3,214,451
-10.7%
Procrit
18
J0885
235,821
$12.56
$3,027,376
$2,960,842
-34.2%
Aloxi
19
J2469
102,904
$27.61
$3,400,845
$2,841,468
-16.4%
Xolair
20
J2357
97,961
$28.22
$2,356,150
$2,764,605
17.3%
Velcade
21
J9041
58,370
$43.75
$2,175,737
$2,553,969
17.4%
Orencia
22
J0129
99,660
$23.82
$2,184,236
$2,374,323
8.7%
Tysabri
23
J2323
246,761
$9.52
$2,029,754
$2,349,569
15.8%
Gammagard S/D
24
J1566
30,966
$68.01
$2,641,719
$2,106,055
-20.3%
Abraxane
25
J9264
169,836
$12.25
$1,920,594
$2,079,944
8.3%
$147,956,540
$145,239,553
Total
-1.8%
010
Q4
2
010
Q3
2
010
Q2
2
010
Q1
2
9
00
Q4
2
9
00
Q3
2
9
00
Q2
2
9
00
Q1
2
Trend drivers
|
Fig. 49 Top 10 Drugs by Quarter (2009 and 2010)
$5.0 M
$4.5 M
$4.0 M
$3.5 M
$3.0 M
$2.5 M
$2.0 M
$1.5 M
$1.0 M
$.5 M
Remicade
Avastin
Neulasta
Rituxan
Herceptin
Lucentis
Taxotere
Advate
Gammagard
Eloxatin
Q1 2009
Q2 2009
Q3 2009
Q4 2009
The top 10 drugs are responsible for more than 55 percent
of the overall medical injectable benefit spend at these
plans. It appears 2010 was a relatively volatile period for
these products, with some large swings in quarter-toquarter claims. Lucentis, Rituxan, Neulasta, and Gammagard appear to be increasing in 2010. See Figure 49, Top
10 Drugs by Quarter (2009 and 2010).
Q1 2010
Q2 2010
Q3 2010
Q4 2010
When the diagnosis codes used for members receiving medical
benefit injectable drugs were reviewed, about 25 diagnoses represent at least 1 percent of patients receiving medical injectables.
The top 15 diagnoses accounted for 37 percent of total patients
per million lives. Additionally, five of the top six ICD-9 codes are
for rheumatologic disorders. See Figure 50, Portion of Health Plan
Members Who Received a Medical Injectable for Key Diagnoses.
|
fig. 50 Portion of members who received a medical injectable
Ranking
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Total
Primary
Diagnosis Code
715
726
719
786
724
727
789
414
728
493
466
692
461
477
780
266
281
V25
722
729
787
733
362
285
723
Primary Diagnosis Code Description
Osteoarthrosis and allied disorders
Peripheral enthesopathies and allied syndromes
Other and unspecified disorders of joint
Symptoms involving respiratory system and other chest symptoms
Other and unspecified disorders of back
Other disorders of synovium, tendon, and bursa
Other symptoms involving abdomen and pelvis
Other forms of chronic ischemic heart disease
Disorders of muscle, ligament, and fascia
Asthma
Acute bronchitis and bronchiolitis
Contact dermatitis and other eczema
Acute sinusitis
Allergic rhinitis
General symptoms
Deficiency of B-complex components
Other deficiency anemias
Encounter for contraceptive management
Intervertebral disk disorders
Other disorders of soft tissues
Symptoms involving digestive system
Other disorders of bone and cartilage
Other retinal disorders
Other and unspecified anemias
Other disorders of cervical region
2009
2010
% of Total Patients
per 1 M Lives
5%
5%
4%
4%
3%
2%
3%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
% of Total Patients
per 1 M Lives
6%
5%
5%
4%
3%
3%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
41%
47%
37
38
Spend drivers
Management of
Spend Drivers
Provider-infused or injected chemotherapy, as expected,
represents the largest portion of medical benefit injectable costs at about one-third of the total costs; when
chemotherapy support medicines are considered, injectables associated with cancer care represent about half of
allowed medical injectable costs. The 2010 portion of total
provider-administered injectable spend due to cancer and
cancer support was nearly identical to 2009. Overall spend
was flat year over year, likely due to certain cancer drugs
losing patent, lower ESA utilization, and 340B pricing pressures on blood factors. Also, and very important, many
payors have implemented medical injectable cost-control
programs, as outlined earlier in this report. It is clear that
some of these programs are effective at cost control. For
reference purposes as depicted in Figure 51, a 1-million-
life commercial payor in 2010 spent on average $18 million on oral chemotherapy, but spent nearly $82 million
on injectable chemotherapies, suggesting that oral chemotherapy is approximately 18 percent of a payor’s total
chemotherapy spend. It is important to note that these
data reflect all sites of service and so provide a more complete picture of the overall spend across the medical and
pharmacy benefits. Because of this more comprehensive
analysis, these paid amounts are likely larger than other
available benchmarks that measure only provider officebased administrations. Provider-administered injectables
used to treat rheumatologic disorders represent the second largest therapeutic area by spend – about 13 percent
of total medical injectable costs. See Figure 51, Spend by
Key Therapeutic Class per 1 Million Lives.
|
Fig. 51 Spend by Key Therapeutic Class (Medical and Pharmacy)
2009
2010
Therapy
Allowed per 1 M Lives
% of Spend
% of Spend
IV chemotherapy
$89,181,960
33%
$81,881,838
31%
Rheumatology
$32,666,943
12%
$35,510,361
13%
Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor
$20,472,358
8%
$20,652,866
8%
Oral chemotherapy
$17,911,263
7%
$18,181,125
7%
Intravenous immune globulin
$15,090,615
6%
$16,088,787
6%
Chemotherapy support – unspecified
$10,185,650
4%
$10,207,388
4%
Hemophilia
$9,396,503
4%
$8,477,727
3%
Erythropoiesis-stimulating agent
$9,611,659
4%
$8,227,824
3%
Antiemetics
$5,545,859
2%
$4,846,520
2%
Other
$57,434,542
21%
$63,147,583
24%
Total
$267,497,351
100%
$267,222,020
100%
39
National Provider
Trends
Across all lines of business, oncologists order and administer the most medical benefit injectable drugs, representing 39 percent of the total spend. Hematologists and
rheumatologists are also key medical specialties. Other
provider specialties mentioned include internists, gastroenterologists, pediatricians, ophthalmologists, and
various others. See Figure 52, Spend per 1 Million Lives by
Provider Specialty.
|
Fig. 52 Spend by Provider Specialty
Urology
$1,588,700
(2% of total)
Rheumatology
$6,648,138
(7% of total)
1%
2%
Radiation oncology
$781,803
(1% of total)
Oncology
$39,305,858
(39% of total)
7%
In a year-over-year assessment of claims to determine
what specialties are ordering medical benefit injectables,
a lower portion appears to be ordered by oncologists in
2010 when compared with 2009, and this was absorbed
by an increase in prescribing by radiation oncologists
and hematologists. One factor for why this occurred is
the increase in more hospital broad-specialty-based care
for oncology in 2010. See Figure 53, Claims per 1 Million
Lives by Provider Specialty.
19%
Hematology
$19,494,494
(19% of total)
39%
32%
Other
$32,378,721
(32% of total)
|
Fig. 53 Claims by Provider Specialty
2009
Specialty
2010
Units per 1 M Lives
2009
% Change
2010
Claims per 1 M Lives
% Change
Oncology
2,046,690
1,937,091
-5.4%
81,088
67,560
-16.7%
Other
3,631,554
3,512,842
-3.3%
253,875
232,749
-8.3%
Hematology
884,837
1,157,807
30.8%
35,407
39,258
10.9%
Rheumatology
147,611
166,082
12.5%
12,985
12,578
-3.1%
Urology
28,415
41,297
45.3%
6,367
6,338
-0.5%
Radiation oncology
41,173
50,650
23.0%
1,408
1,683
19.5%
ICORE Healthcare, Medical Pharmacy & Oncology Trend Report™ ™
ICORE Healthcare, Medical Pharmacy & Oncology Trend Report
Oncology
Other
Hematolog
Rheumatolo
Urology
Radiation O
40
Injectable therapies billed under the patient’s medical benefit are typically administered through one of four main
channels: the hospital, facility outpatient, home infusion,
or the provider’s office; additional infusions are given at
other sites of service, with ESAs administered at dialysis
centers serving as a key example. Looking at the top 10
drugs by annual allowed amount per 1 million lives in 2010,
administration in the hospital setting generally results in
twice the amount of what a provider-administered injectable delivered in the provider’s office would cost. There has
been some migration in the market with provider groups
beginning to send patients to hospitals for their therapy
administration, which has potential to increase significantly
costs of care over time as this continues. While most sites
of service had no systematic change in cost per claim over
time, stand-alone clinics and dialysis centers had a reduction in cost per claim for all these high-spend products.
This is likely due to a focused effort of payors to control
reimbursement costs at these centers, as a result of historically high reimbursement rates when compared with other
administration sites. See Figure 54, Spend and Utilization
per 1 Million Lives by Site of Service.
|
Fig. 54 Spend and Utilization Per 1 Million Lives by Site of Service
Ranking
J Code
Brand Name
2009 Total $/Claim
2010 Total $/Claim
1
J1745
Remicade
$16,831,355
$3,711
$3,765
2
J9035
Avastin
$16,797,540
$3,784
$3,248
3
J2505
Neulasta
$15,551,250
$3,405
$3,309
4
J9310
Rituxan
$12,373,250
$5,228
$5,218
5
J9355
Herceptin
$8,145,277
$2,562
$2,516
6
J2778
Lucentis
$7,216,687
$2,088
$2,071
7
J9171
Taxotere
$6,542,993
$2,622
$2,308
8
J7192
Advate
$5,474,438
$7,057
$4,970
9
J1569
Gammagard
$5,043,225
$4,779
$4,409
10
J9263
Eloxatin
$4,705,059
$3,888
$3,658
Percent of $/Claim
Hospital
Other (i.e., ESRD and Clinics)
Home Infusion/SPP
Medical Office
BRAND NAME
Ranking
2009
2010
% Change
2009
2010
% Change
2009
2010
% Change
2009
2010
% Change
Remicade
1
32%
34%
6%
32%
26%
-21%
18%
20%
7%
17%
18%
3%
Avastin
2
38%
40%
6%
40%
40%
1%
9%
8%
-16%
13%
12%
-9%
Neulasta
3
25%
26%
5%
39%
33%
-21%
20%
25%
18%
16%
17%
7%
Rituxan
4
26%
26%
0%
36%
32%
-10%
23%
24%
6%
16%
18%
11%
Herceptin
5
23%
24%
4%
36%
32%
-12%
30%
31%
4%
12%
13%
14%
Lucentis
6
17%
12%
-38%
37%
33%
-11%
23%
27%
14%
23%
28%
19%
Taxotere
7
28%
29%
2%
37%
29%
-28%
19%
24%
21%
15%
18%
18%
Advate
8
38%
50%
24%
37%
13%
-195%
15%
13%
-15%
10%
25%
145%
Gammagard
9
24%
29%
19%
26%
18%
-48%
28%
27%
-4%
22%
26%
17%
Eloxatin
10
26%
28%
9%
36%
29%
-25%
22%
24%
10%
16%
18%
14%
viders for high-cost medications. As a result, this continues
to drive the need to have claim systems with sophisticated
edits and utilization review because these nondescript
codes are not providing payors with the data needed to
validate how these drugs are being used for their members.
See Figure 55, Top Five Diagnosis Codes for Key Medical
Benefit Drugs.
Medical benefit injectable drugs are commonly used for
multiple indications, and we found wide variations in the indications of high-spend medical benefit injectable products.
The data listed illustrates the top five diagnoses for Avastin,
Herceptin, Remicade, Rituxan, Neulasta, and Taxotere in
2010. Additionally, the 2009 data are presented. Of concern, nonspecific ICD-9 codes continue to be used by pro-
|
Taxotere
Neulasta
Rituxan
Remicade
Herceptin
Avastin
Fig. 55 Top Five Diagnosis Codes
2010
Description
Code
Encounter for other and unspecified procedures and aftercare
V58
$4,676,837
Malignant neoplasm of female breast
Malignant neoplasm of trachea, bronchus, and lung
174
162
$3,210,006
$3,143,141
Malignant neoplasm of colon
Malignant neoplasm of brain
153
191
$3,166,199
$1,142,004
Description
Code
Secondary malignant neoplasm of other specified sites
Malignant neoplasm of stomach
Malignant neoplasm of male breast
174
V58
198
151
175
Description
Code
Regional enteritis
Rheumatoid arthritis and other inflammatory polyarthropathies
Psoriasis and similar disorders
Ulcerative colitis
Ankylosing spondylitis and other inflammatory spondylopathies
555
714
696
556
720
Description
Code
Other malignant neoplasms of lymphoid and histiocytic tissue
Rheumatoid arthritis and other inflammatory polyarthropathies
Lymphoid leukemia
Lymphosarcoma and reticulosarcoma
202
V58
714
204
200
Description
Code
Diseases of white blood cells
Other malignant neoplasms of lymphoid and histiocytic tissue
174
288
V58
162
202
Description
Code
Malignant neoplasm of prostate
Malignant neoplasm of ovary and other uterine adnexa
174
V58
185
162
183
2009
2009
$4,029,285
-13.8%
659
553
-16.1%
$2,853,309
$2,780,706
-11.1%
-11.5%
572
478
498
442
-13.0%
-7.6%
$2,535,443
$1,300,605
-19.9%
13.9%
845
162
741
226
-12.4%
39.5%
% change
2009
4.3%
-16.7%
-17.2%
N/A
N/A
2,606
484
25
N/A
N/A
% change
2009
5.0%
-4.6%
4.6%
12.4%
-7.9%
1,218
2,011
511
393
157
% change
2009
0.6%
-6.7%
29.8%
-6.8%
-8.8%
1,129
328
167
236
194
% change
2009
0.5%
17.8%
-8.9%
2.7%
4.9%
942
990
602
357
241
% change
2009
-2.2%
-37.9%
9.5%
6.0%
9.1%
1,142
408
377
342
106
2010
2009
$6,018,739
$1,923,343
$61,667
N/A
N/A
$6,277,958
$1,601,429
$51,087
$27,449
$21,681
2010
2009
$5,511,584
$5,973,788
$2,001,111
$1,707,740
$579,823
$5,787,732
$5,699,470
$2,093,268
$1,919,806
$534,229
2010
2009
$5,407,535
$2,280,476
$1,020,757
$1,092,669
$905,996
$5,442,542
$2,128,068
$1,324,958
$1,018,095
$826,271
2010
2009
$3,339,731
$2,799,542
$2,635,785
$1,182,466
$803,072
$3,356,197
$3,298,293
$2,402,215
$1,214,710
$842,486
2010
2009
$2,933,734
$1,992,836
$674,833
$574,370
$204,480
2010
% change
% change
$2,870,075
$1,237,415
$739,170
$608,623
$223,003
2010
% change
2,659
467
24
13
6
2.0%
-3.4%
-3.4%
N/A
N/A
2010
% change
1,261
1,895
537
455
156
3.5%
-5.8%
5.1%
15.8%
-0.4%
2010
% change
1,135
327
200
234
190
0.5%
-0.5%
19.7%
-0.5%
-1.8%
2010
% change
923
1,176
606
390
254
-2.0%
18.8%
0.7%
9.2%
5.3%
2010
% change
1,108
517
303
311
91
-3.0%
26.8%
-19.8%
-9.1%
-14.3%
41
New Analyses
for 2011
There are several key specialty drugs commonly paid on
both the medical and pharmacy benefits. To address this,
we looked at two such classes, IVIG and rheumatoid arthritis
(RA). The results are consistent year over year: By and large,
claims for IVIG are paid under the medical benefit and claims
for RA are paid under the pharmacy benefit. See Figure 56,
Self-Injectable Versus Physician-Administered Claims by Benefit (All Lines of Business, 2010).
|
Fig. 56 Self-Injectable vs. Physician-Administered Claims by Benefit (All Lines of Business, 2010)
Pharmacy Benefit
5%
75%
75%
50%
95%
25%
25%
0%
IVIG
Medical Benefit
Pharmacy Benefit
$35 M
Rheumatoid Arthritis
Allowed per Million Lives by Benefit
Medical Benefit
100%
% of Share of Claims by Benefit
42
$30 M
$25 M
$21,615,960
$20 M
$1,000,790
$15 M
$10 M
$15,087,997
$5 M
IVIG
$10,497,368
Rheumatoid Arthritis
Two common oncology supportive care therapeutic areas that
receive payor attention for management were also evaluated,
but for different reasons: CINV, which is believed to be easy to
manage, and white blood cell stimulants (granulocyte colonystimulating factors), because it is a high-cost line item.
In CINV, we see the larger percentage of paid claims for Kytril
and Zofran for use in combination with low emetogenic chemotherapy (LEC) regimens, followed by use in combination with
moderate emetogenic chemotherapies (MECs). With Aloxi, we
still see a little over one-third of the dollars associated with LEC
regimens, even though the label is for use principally with highly
emetogenic chemotherapies (HECs) or MEC regimens.
Looking at G-CSFs, we see that the vast majority of the
spend per million lives for Neulasta is for use in conjunction with myelosuppressive chemotherapy. The claims
data show that 40 percent of the Neupogen spend is for
nonmyelosuppressive chemotherapy and slightly less for
Leukine. Further supporting the appropriate use of these
products is the fact that payors who reported requiring
authorization for G-CSFs found small to no denial rates,
likely as a result of the complicated patient profile beyond
simply the diagnosis code to Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) code match. See Figure
57, Oncology Support Drug Utilization – Medical and Pharmacy Benefits (2010).
|
Fig. 57 Oncology Support Drug Utilization – Medical and Pharmacy benefits (2010)
CINV – % of $/MM
G-CSF – % of $/MM
Regimen
Aloxi
Zofran
Kytril
Regimen
LEC
37%
41%
47%
MEC
36%
27%
29%
HEC
22%
14%
10%
Unknown
5%
18%
14%
Two years of paid claims across all lines of business were also
analyzed to compare the portion of classified and unclassified
codes paid at commercial payors. Included in this comparison
were the classic “dump” codes, such as J3490, J3535, J3590,
J7699, J7199, J7599, J7799, J8498, J8499, J8597, J8999, and
J9999. In fact, significantly less than 1 percent of total spend
in each of the last two years was paid under these codes. We
believe this is in line with what is to be expected, as these
codes were established for drugs newly approved that do
not yet have a Medicare HCPCS code assigned. See Figure 58,
Unclassified Codes – Medical Benefit.
Neulasta
Neupogen
Leukine
Nonmyelosuppressive
19%
40%
32%
Myelosuppressive
81%
60%
68%
|
Fig. 58 Unclassified Codes – Medical Benefit
Classified
unClassified
2009
Allowed per 1 M lives
$227,049,357
$882,851
Claims per 1 M lives
743,151
3,607
% of total spend
99.6%
0.4%
Allowed per 1 M lives
$228,338,685
$690,094
Claims per 1 M lives
776,273
3,528
% of total spend
99.7%
0.3%
2010
43
An analysis of label (FDA and NCCN guidelines) and offlabel uses of medical injectables across all lines of business
was conducted to see if there were any differences by service line. Label and off-label use was found to be consistent
across all lines of business, with on-label claims representing 93 percent of the allowed spend per 1 million lives and
95 percent of the claims per 1 million lives. See Figure 59,
Off-Label Utilization for the Top 25 Drugs (2010).
|
Fig. 59 Off-Label Utilization for the Top 25 Drugs (2010)
ALL LOB
Commercial
Medicare
Medicaid
Allowed
Per 1 M Lives
(% of Total)
Claims
Per 1 M Lives
(% of Total)
Allowed
Per 1 M Lives
(% of Total)
Claims
Per 1 M Lives
(% of Total)
Allowed
Per 1 M Lives
(% of Total)
Claims
Per 1 M Lives
(% of Total)
Allowed
Per 1 M Lives
(% of Total)
Claims
Per 1 M Lives
(% of Total)
OnLabel
$137,075,407
(93%)
62,786
(95%)
$138,176,959
(93%)
62,468
(94%)
$329,178,938
(95%)
177,285
(96%)
$20,503,840
(98%)
9,673
(95%)
OffLabel
$10,656,434
(7%)
3,586
(5%)
$11,118,355
(7%)
3,646
(6%)
$15,705,199
(5%)
7,725
(4%)
$318,500
(2%)
462
(5%)
In an effort to evaluate what happens to payor spend under a
specific J code after a drug loses patent protection, essentially
monetizing the value to payors of price erosion over time, we
studied Eloxatin, which went generic in quarter four of 2009. The
data show roughly a 25 percent drop over a 12-month period.
Generic sales were put on hold while a challenge lawsuit was
resolved, though much inventory flooded the market prior to
that situation. See Figure 60, Generic Introduction Spend Impact.
|
Fig. 60 Generic Introduction Spend Impact
$2.5 M
44
$2.0 M
$1.5 M
$1.0 M
Q1 2009
Q2 2009
Q3 2009
Q4 2009
Q1 2010
Q2 2010
Q3 2010
Q4 2010
Product Pipeline and Legislative Trends
pRODUCT pIPELINE aND lEGISLATIVE tRENDS
46
PRODUCT PIPELINE
Product Pipeline
In 2010, a number of very costly medical injectables received
approval for marketing in the U.S., and 2011 continues the
trend with 11 new entrants approved by the FDA in the first
half of the year. Yervoy created a stir in the market not only
for the clinical data showing survival in metastatic melanoma,
but also for its $30,000 per dose price tag. Although metastatic melanoma has a poor prognosis, Yervoy is the first drug
shown to extend life in metastatic melanoma with a median
survival of 10.1 months. However, as with the other agents,
Yervoy is associated with severe side effects. Severe or fatal
autoimmune reactions occurred in 12.9 percent of patients
treated with Yervoy. Because of these severe adverse events,
Yervoy is approved with a risk evaluation and mitigation
strategy to inform providers of these severe risks. See Figure 61, 2011 FDA-Approved Injectable Drugs/Indications –
Specialty and Oncology.
|
Fig. 61 2011 FDA-Approved Injectable Drugs
drug
manufacturer
indication
approval
Makena (hydroxyprogesterone
caproate injection)
Hologic
Prevention of risk of preterm birth
February
Yervoy (ipilimumab)
Bristol-Myers Squibb
Metastatic melanoma
March
Benlysta (belimumab)
Human Genome Sciences
Systemic lupus erythematosus
March
Zytiga (abiraterone acetate)
Centocor Ortho Biotech
Prostate cancer
March
Sylatron (peginterferon alfa-2b)
Merck
Melanoma
April
Actemra (tocilizumab)
Genentech
Systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis
April
Nulojix (belatacept)
Bristol-Myers Squibb
Prevention of organ rejection following kidney transplant
June
Firazyr (icatibant)
Shire
Acute attacks of hereditary angioedema
August
Adcetris (brentuximab vedotin)
Seattle Genetics
Hodgkin lymphoma and analplastic large-cell lymphoma
August
Soliris (eculizumab)
Alexion
Atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome
September
Onfi (clobazam)
Lundbeck
Lennox-Gastaut syndrome
October
Source: FDA-Approved Drugs. CenterWatch website. www.centerwatch.com/
drug-information/fda-approvals. Accessed October 31, 2011.
Product pipeline and legislative trends
PRODUCT PIPELINE
Other than Teva’s lipegfilgrastim (Neutroval), which is being
held from its previous September 30, 2010 launch due to an
agreement with Amgen until after 2013, there are few biosimilar therapies past phase 1 or phase 2 in the pipeline other
than ESAs and G-CSFs. See Figure 62, Biosimilar Pipeline.
|
Fig. 62 Biosimilar Pipeline
product name
proposed indication
company
phase of fda study
comments
MK-2578
(pegylated
erythropoietin)
Anemia, chronic kidney disease
Merck
N/A
Merck has discontinued development of this
biosimilar product.
Neutroval
Reduction in the duration of
Teva
severe neutropenia and the
incidence of febrile neutropenia
in patients treated with
established myelosuppressive
chemotherapy for cancer.
Phase 3
Teva entered into a settlement with Amgen that
will prohibit it from launching Neutroval until
November 2013.
Lipegfilgrastim
Reduction in the duration of
Teva
severe neutropenia and the
incidence of febrile neutropenia
in patients treated with
established myelosuppressive
chemotherapy for cancer.
Phase 3
Phase 3 study of lipegfilgrastim achieved its
primary endpoint of reducing the duration
of severe neutropenia in patients receiving
myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Initial
study results showed the duration of severe
neutropenia was similar to Neulasta in breast
cancer patients. Teva entered into a settlement
with Amgen that will prohibit it from launching
lipegfilgrastim until November 2013.
Erythropoietin (EPO)
Treat anemia caused by chronic
kidney disease
Hospira
Phase 2
Hospira already sells a biosimilar EPO, Retacrit,
in Europe.
Rituximab
Rheumatoid arthritis
Sandoz
Phase 2
Sandoz initiated a phase 2 trial of biosimilar
rituximab in January 2011.
™
™
ICORE
Healthcare,
Medical
Pharmacy
& Oncology
Trend
Report
ICORE
Healthcare,
Medical
Pharmacy
& Oncology
Trend
Report
47
48
PRODUCT PIPELINE
Figure 54 ‐ Pipeline Drugs in Various Phases of Study for Key Cancer Types
Tumor Type
Breast
Non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)
Colorectal
Phase 2
73
Phase 3
30
56
30
30
18
Notes for Staywell
format: stacked bar like fig 54
color: teal and gray
continue
to be an increasingly important tool to match thernote: in product pipeline and legislative trends section
apeutic effect with the genetic makeup of patients. NSCLC
please use same source as last year. Date accessed is Augus
is also heavily researched. Colorectal, prostate, melanoma,
ovarian, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma each have at least
40 products under study. See Figure 63, Pipeline Drugs in
Various Phases of Study for Key Cancer Types, and Figure 64,
Selected Phase 3 Products by Key Cancer Type.
In
2011, more agents are advancing
Ovarian
29 to phase 2/3
16 trials than
in 2010. Specifically, there is a 16 percent increase in the
Non‐Hodgkin lymphoma 31
13
number of phase 2 agents, as well as a 10 percent increase
(NHL)
Melanoma
26
in the number of phase 3 agents. Breast cancer15
continues to
Prostate
24over 100 agents
13 in either
lead
the clinical research field with
Renal 2/3 trials across all indications
18 and lines
10of therapy.
phase
Many
trials
are
associated
with
genomic
markers,
which
Head and neck
15
10
|
Acute myelogenous Fig. 63 Pipeline Drugs in Various
Phases
14
10 of Study for Key Cancer Types
leukemia (AML)
Phase 2
Breast
Phase 3
73
Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)
56
30
Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL)
30
Colorectal
29
16
Ovarian
31
13
Melanoma
18
26
Prostate
15
24
Renal
13
18
Head and neck
15
Acute myelogenous leukemia (AML)
14
0
30
10
10
10
20
40
60
Product Indications
80
100
120
Adapted with permission from Oncology Business Review.
Pipeline Online™. www.oncbiz.com. Accessed August 22, 2011.
PRODUCT PIPELINE
|
Fig. 64 Selected Phase 3 Products by Cancer Type
BREAST
Product Name
Class
Afinitor
mTOR inhibitor
Area(s) of Study
locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer
Aromasin
aromatase inhibitor
breast cancer
arzoxifene
selective estrogen receptor modulator
(SERM)
breast cancer
Avastin
antivascular endothelial growth factor
(anti-VEGF) monoclonal antibody
first-line metastatic breast cancer (HER2- and
HER2+); second-line metastatic breast cancer;
adjuvant (HER2- and HER2+)
Doxil
anthracycline antibiotic
metastatic breast cancer
Faslodex
oestrogen receptor antagonist
first-line metastatic breast cancer
Herceptin
antibody drug conjugate
adjuvant breast cancer (HER2+)
iniparib
poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP)
inhibitor
metastatic breast cancer (triple negative)
Ixempra
epothilone
adjuvant breast cancer
neratinib
ErbB1 and ErbB2 inhibitor
advanced breast cancer (HER2+)
NeuVax
immunotherapy (peptide-based)
adjuvant breast cancer (HER2+)
Omnitarg
human EGF receptor (HER) dimerization
inhibitor
first-line metastatic breast cancer (HER2+)
Orazol
bisphosphonate (oral)
ramucirumab
anti-VEGFR-2 monoclonal antibody
second-line metastatic breast cancer
Stimuvax
immunotherapy
second-line metastatic breast cancer
Tavocept
chemoprotective agent
metastatic breast cancer
Tovok
epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)/
HER2 inhibitor
first-line metastatic breast cancer
trastuzumab emtansine
antibody drug conjugate
second-line metastatic breast cancer (HER2+)
Tykerb
ErbB2 and EGFR dual kinase inhibitor
adjuvant breast cancer; first-line metastatic breast
cancer
Votrient (+ Tykerb)
multiple tyrosine kinase inhibitor
inflammatory breast cancer
Xeloda
fluoropyrimidine (oral)
Zometa
bisphosphonate
breast cancer
49
50
PRODUCT PIPELINE
Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC)
Product Name
Class
Abraxane
microtubule inhibitor
second-line metastatic
Alimta
antimetabolite (a folic acid antagonist)
NSCLC
ARQ 197 (+ erlotinib)
c-Met kinase inhibitor
Avastin
anti-VEGF monoclonal antibody
NSCLC with previously treated central nervous
system metastases; adjuvant
crizotinib
anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)
inhibitor (oral)
advanced NSCLC
Area(s) of Study
Erbitux
anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody
NSCLC; second-line metastatic
iniparib
PARP inhibitor
squamous cell lung cancer
Iressa
EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor
NSCLC
Lucanix
immunotherapy
NSCLC
motesanib diphosphate
anti-VEGF receptors 1, 2, and 3
(VEGFR 1-3) (oral)
first-line metastatic NSCLC
necitumumab
EGFR inhibitor
NSCLC
Nexavar
first-line metastatic
Opaxio
NSCLC
Ostarine
selective androgen receptor modulator
(SARM)
NSCLC
PF-00299804
pan-HER inhibitor
metastatic
Stimuvax
immunotherapy
NSCLC
Sutent
NSCLC
talactoferrin
dendritic cell activator (DCA)
locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC
Tarceva
HER1/EGFR inhibitor
adjuvant
Tovok
EGFR/HER2 inhibitor
NSCLC
Vargatef
(VEGFR; fibroblast growth factor
receptor, FGFR; platelet-derived growth
factor receptor, PDGFR)
NSCLC
Zaltrap
VEGF-A inhibitor
PRODUCT PIPELINE
Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL)
Product Name
Class
Arzerra
anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody
(humanized)
second-line follicular
Avastin
diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL)
BiovaxID
immunotherapy
follicular
enzastaurin
serine/threonine kinase inhibitor
DLBCL
Folotyn
antifolate
peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL)
galiximab
anti-CD80 monoclonal antibody
B cell
pixantrone
anthracycline
second-line diffuse large B cell
Revlimid
immune system modulator
NHL
Velcade
proteasome inhibitor
second-line follicular
Zevalin
CD20-directed radiotherapeutic antibody
follicular
Area(s) of Study
colorectal
Product Name
Class
Aptocine
light-activated drug treatment
metastatic
axitinib
multiple tyrosine kinase inhibitor (VEGFR 1,
2, and 3; PDGFR; cKIT)
brivanib
VEGFR-2 inhibitor
metastatic
Area(s) of Study
Erbitux
first-line metastatic; adjuvant
ramucirumab
Anti-VEGFR-2 monoclonal antibody
Recentin
multiple tyrosine kinase inhibitor (VEGFR
1, 2, and 3)
colorectal cancer
S-1
colorectal cancer
Tarceva
HER1/EGFR inhibitor
colorectal cancer
Vectibix
anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody (humanized)
first-line metastatic; second-line metastatic
Xeloda
first-line metastatic; second-line metastatic;
adjuvant
Zaltrap
VEGF-A inhibitor
51
52
PRODUCT PIPELINE
Ovarian
Product Name
Class
alkeran
alkylating agent
ovarian cancer
AMG 386 (+ paclitaxel)
Fc-peptide fusion protein targeting
angiopoietins (peptibody)
Avastin
first-line metastatic; second-line metastatic
platinum-sensitive
farletuzumab; MORAb-003
IgG1 monoclonal antibody (humanized)
Hycamtin
topoisomerase inhibitor
Area(s) of Study
iniparib
PARP inhibitor
platinum-sensitive and platinum-resistant
Karenitecin
highly lipophilic camptothecin
ovarian cancer
Opaxio; paclitaxel poliglumex; CT2103
ovarian cancer
patupilone
epothilone
ovarian cancer
phenoxodiol
multiple signal transduction regulator
ovarian cancer
Tarceva; erlotinib
HER1/EGFR inhibitor
ovarian cancer
Vargatef; BIBF 1120
(VEGFR, FGFR, PDGFR)
ovarian cancer
Product Name
Class
Abraxane
BRF113683
BRAF inhibitor
advanced; metastatic
Delcath System
drug delivery platform
metastatic in the liver
GSK1120212
MEK inhibitor
GSK2118436
BRAF inhibitor
Nexavar
melanoma
Oncophage
immunotherapy
metastatic
OncoVEX granulocyte-macrophage
colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF)
modified herpes-simplex 1 virus injected
directly into tumor
metastatic
Pegintron
PEG recombinant alpha-2b interferon
melanoma
Yervoy
anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibody
(humanized)
adjuvant; second-line metastatic
Zadaxin
melanoma
Zelboraf
BRAF-selective kinase inhibitor
melanoma
Melanoma
Area(s) of Study
PRODUCT PIPELINE
Prostate
Product Name
Class
Alpharadi
alpha-emitting radiopharmaceutical
treatment of bone metastases in hormone
refractory prostate cancer (HRPC)
Avastin
HRPC
cabazitaxel
taxane
first-line HRPC
DCVax
immunotherapy
prostate cancer
MDV3100
SARM
HRPC
OGX-011/TV-1011 (+ docetaxel)
clusterin inhibitor
second-line metastatic hormone refractory
phenoxodiol
multiple signal transduction regulator
prostate cancer
Revlimid
prostate cancer
satraplatin
platinum chemotherapy agent (oral)
second-line metastatic hormone refractory
(docetaxel refractory)
Sutent
HRPC
Zytiga
inhibitor of the steroidal enzyme 17
alpha-hydroxylase/C17,20 lyase (oral)
first-line metastatic HRPC
Area(s) of Study
Renal
Product Name
Class
axitinib
multiple tyrosine kinase inhibitor (VEGFR
1, 2, and 3; PDGFR; cKIT)
Nexavar
adjuvant
Oncophage
immunotherapy
metastatic
Sutent
first-line metastatic; adjuvant; cytokine-refractory
metastatic
Area(s) of Study
tivozanib
VEGF receptors 1, 2, and 3 inhibitor
Torisel
mTOR inhibitor
renal cell carcinoma
Votrient
adjuvant
53
54
PRODUCT PIPELINE
Head and Neck
Product Name
Class
Alimta (+ cisplatin)
antimetabolite (a folic acid antagonist)
recurrent or metastatic (squamous)
Avastin
metastatic
Area(s) of Study
Multikine
immunotherapy
first line
OncoVEX GM-CSF
modified herpes-simplex 1 virus injected
directly into tumor
first line
selective electrochemical tumor
ablation (SECTA) + bleomycin
electroporation therapy
head and neck cancer
Tykerb
ErbB2 and EGFR dual kinase inhibitor
head and neck cancer (squamous)
Vectibix
(humanized)
metastatic; recurrent
zalutumumab (+ radiotherapy);
HuMax-EGFR
(humanized)
first line
Acute Myelogenous Leukemia (AML)
Product Name
Class
Area(s) of Study
Ceplene
histamine H2 receptor agonist
AML
Clolar
antimetabolite
AML
Dacogen
antimetabolite (cytidine analog)
AML
elacytarabine
antimetabolite
AML
midostaurine
AML
Onrigin
alkylating agent
AML
sapacitabine
antimetabolite (oral)
Trisenox
taxane (a synthetic retinoid)
AML
Vidaza
antimetabolite (cytidine analog)
AML
vosaroxin
topoisomerase 2 inhibitor
AML
Adapted with permission from Oncology Business Review. Pipeline Online™. www.oncbiz.com. Accessed August 22, 2011.
Key Legislative Outcomes
Key Legislative
Outcomes – 2011
Given the difficult economy, current budgetary challenges,
and the call for deficit reduction, health care spending is and
will likely remain a focal point for the states and federal government in the foreseeable future. In the U.S. this year, the
government has paid over half of the nation's health care bills.
•• Initial phasing in of coverage in the Medicare Part
D coverage gap for brand-name and generic drugs,
helping to reduce the beneficiary coinsurance amounts,
as well as implementation of the manufacturer-required
50 percent rebate for drugs in the coverage gap
Oncology Health Policy Updates
State Oral and IV Parity Legislation
Since the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act (ACA) in 2010, CMS has been actively engaged in
the rule-making process, asking for comments to proposed
rules, as well as issuing some final regulations and guidance.
Some important developments related to ACA and oncology
include:
•• Provisions related to the increased Medicaid rebate
amount for drugs dispensed or administered to fee-forservice Medicaid and Medicaid managed care beneficiaries
Another important issue impacting oncology this year has
been the efforts to secure cost-sharing parity between
oral, injected, and infused products. The aim of supporters, led by the American Cancer Society, is to have parity
in patient coinsurance responsibility between settings of
care (ultimately, through medical and pharmacy benefit
parity). A map below provides an overview of state policies related to oral and injected/infused parity. See Figure
65, Oral and IV Parity Legislation.
|
Fig. 65 Oral and IV Parity Legislation
Proposed relevant
legislation in the last two
legislative sessions
No legislation
Enacted legislation
DC
Source: HillCo HEALTH review of 50 state policies related to oral and IV parity as of 7/27/2011.
55
56
While not included in the chart, a number of other states, for
example, North Carolina and Virginia, proposed legislation
to study the issues of access related to oral versus IV oncolytics. The issue of oral versus IV parity continues to build at
the state level each year, as demonstrated by the map.
Off-Label-Coverage Cancer Drugs and Biologics
Under the Omnibus Budget and Reconciliation Act of 1990,
states cover most prescription drugs, including cancer drugs
and biologics, as well as supportive products, in their Medicaid programs (OBRA-90, Pub. L. 101-508, 104 Stat. 1388,
enacted November 5, 1990). Coverage of off-label uses
of anticancer medications are allowed under compendia
approved by CMS (SSA 1861 (t)(2)(B), 42 USC 1395x, and
1927 (g)(I)(B)(II) as amended by DRA 2005, Pub. L. 109-171).
Many states also cover the same off-label uses for non-ERISA
(Employee Retirement Income Security Act) employers and
state-funded health care programs, such as for state employees. See Figure 66, States That also Require Coverage for Uses
in Medical Literature.
|
Fig. 66 STATEs that also require coverage for uses in medical literature
Yes
No
No Statutory Citation
unknown
Alabama
Missouri
Connecticut
Alaska
Idaho
Arizona
Nebraska
New Mexico
Colorado
Kentucky
Arkansas
Nevada
North Carolina
District of Columbia
California
New Hampshire
Oklahoma
Iowa
Delaware
New Jersey
Montana
Florida
New York
Pennsylvania
Georgia
North Dakota
Utah
Hawaii
Ohio
West Virginia
Illinois
Oregon
Wisconsin
Indiana
Rhode Island
Wyoming
Kansas
South Carolina
Louisiana
South Dakota
Maine
Tennessee
Maryland
Texas
Massachusetts
Vermont
Michigan
Virginia
Minnesota
Washington
Mississippi
Source: Association of Community Cancer Centers report on off-label use of anticancer therapies, 2009.
Marketplace
There is some evidence to suggest that there is pressure in the
market on oncology products in the physician office setting
as compared with the hospital setting. This change appears
focused around three dynamics:
1. Hospitals appear to be buying up large oncology
practices and shifting the site of care to hospitals where
more favorable contract pricing is usually present for
chemotherapies than in the physician office buy-andbill model. One reason this change is made possible
is by certain state laws allowing for the corporate
practice of medicine (CPOM). In states with a CPOM
prohibition, a business corporation is prohibited from
practicing medicine or employing a physician to provide
professional medical services. Some prohibitions include
exceptions, such as for rural or public hospitals or to
allow physicians to provide medical services through
some form of a professional corporation or service
corporation.
With regard to caring for cancer, it is important that
hospices and palliative care programs understand their
CPOM laws, since these laws determine what type of
relationship they may have with physicians. For example,
a hospice program that employs, as a W-2 worker, a
physician to provide medical services in a state that has
a CPOM prohibition may be placing the physician at risk.
The map below summarizes each state's CPOM laws.
See Figure 67, Corporate Practice of Medicine (CPOM)
Across States.
2.Given the increasing pressures of managing a small
practice and the increasingly higher cost of providing
drugs and biologics, many smaller practices are shifting
patients to the hospital and not providing drugs or
biologics in the physician office setting.
3.The incentive for 340B pricing in the hospital setting,
or a satellite facility, is not available in the physician
office setting.
|
Fig. 67 Corporate practice of medicine (CPOM) across states
Allows CPOM
in most settings
Prohibits CPOM
in most settings
Little guidance
Source: HillCo HEALTH 50-state overview of corporate practice of medicine as of 7/28/2011.
57
Trend Report 2011
58
GLOSSARY
Glossary
ACA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Accountable Care Act
ALK. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . anaplastic lymphoma kinase
AML . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . acute myelogenous leukemia
ASP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . average sales price
AWP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . average wholesale price
BCA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . breast cancer
BRCA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . breast cancer susceptibility gene
BRM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . biologic response modifier
CA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cancer
CINV. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting
CMS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
COA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Community Oncology Alliance
CPOM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . corporate practice of medicine
CRC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . colorectal cancer
DCA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . dendritic cell activator
DLBCL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . diffuse large B-cell lymphoma
EGFR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . epidermal growth factor receptor
EPO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . erythropoietin
ERISA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Employee Retirement Income Security Act
ESA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . erythropoiesis-stimulating agent
ESRD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . end-stage renal disease
FDA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . U.S. Food and Drug Administration
FGFR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fibroblast growth factor receptor
G-CSF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . granulocyte colony-stimulating agent or colony-stimulating factor
GM-CSF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor
HCPCS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System
HEC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . highly emetogenic chemotherapy
HEDIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set
HER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . human EGF receptor
HMO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . health maintenance organization
HRPC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . hormone refractory prostate cancer
Trend Report 2011
GLOSSARY
IV. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . intravenous
IVIG. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . intravenous immune globulin
KRAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kirsten RNA associated rat sarcoma 2 virus gene
LEC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . low emetogenic chemotherapy
LHRHa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analog
LOB. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lines of business
mBC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . metastatic breast cancer
MEC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . moderate emetogenic chemotherapy
MMA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Medicare Modernization Act
NCCN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . National Comprehensive Cancer Network
NHL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . non-Hodgkin lymphoma
NSCLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . non-small cell lung cancer
PA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . prior authorization
PARP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase
PBM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pharmacy benefit manager
PDGFR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . platelet-derived growth factor receptor
PPO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . preferred provider organization
PSA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . prostate-specific antigen
PTCL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . peripheral T-cell lymphoma
RA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . rheumatoid arthritis
SARM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . selective androgen receptor modulator
SECTA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . selective electrochemical tumor ablation
SERM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . selective estrogen receptor modulator
SOS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . site of service
SPP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . specialty pharmacy providers
UM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . utilization management
VEGF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vascular endothelial growth factor
VFS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . variable fee schedule
59
ICORE Healthcare
PRSRT STD
US Postage
PAID
Long Prairie MN
Permit # 871
5850 T.G. Lee Blvd., Suite 510
Orlando, FL 32822
10370M
2011 Second edition
www.ICOREHealthcare.com/trends.aspx
© 2011. ICORE Healthcare. Printed in the U.S.A.
A Benchmark for
Medical Pharmacy
Icore healthcare's MEDICAL Pharmacy & ONCOLOGY TREND REPORT™

Magellan Rx

Transcription

Similar documents

Foreword - touchONCOLOGY

PDF - First Nations Health Authority

Qmatic Pharmacy - Customer Flow Management

How to Tie a Woggle

CvSSS

Pharmacies

Fyfe`s Friendly Pharmacy Address: 5101-50 St

Link to presentation - Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of

New cancer drug inquiry

Pharmacy Daily for 250712